Having received some post-fly-out rejections via email, I find myself resentful at the fact that I was asked to come out by phone and then informed of the rejection by email.
Don't get me wrong. I understand why email is a preferable venue for rejecting. But I still can't help thinking that a campus visit merits a phone notification.
In the immortal words of Peter Frampton, do you feel like I do?
I feel your pain (it's happened to me). But the worst post-flyout rejection I ever got was a rejection letter recited on my office voicemail AT ONE IN THE MORNING on a WEEKEND, when there was no chance I would answer the phone.
Was the email at least somewhat personal? To me, my strangest rejection after a campus visit was a letter sent via snail mail. It was a generic three sentence letter that basically said:
Dear Dr. Reject,
We have decided to go in a different direction for our position in basket weaving. Thank your for your time. We wish you luck in the future.
I can see the logic of contacting candidates by email - personally I'd prefer to read it by email rather than have to have a really awkward phone conversation.
That doesn't excuse an impersonal email though. And it certainly doesn't excuse schools leaving it for ages before bothering to contact the rejected candidates.
I don't see what the fuss is about. Correct me if I'm wrong but good news have always traveled by phone and bad news by mail. It's true that email occupies a middle ground between phone and mail but in my experience it's more likely to carry news that would otherwise be in a letter, not a phone call.
"That doesn't excuse an impersonal email though. And it certainly doesn't excuse schools leaving it for ages before bothering to contact the rejected candidates."
I have to disagree here. I much prefer the rejections I've gotten that are impersonal: they make it quick and unemotional, and they also close the door so I don't embarrass myself by writing back (as I once did), well, if you change your mind, let me know, we'll talk it over, etc. Impersonal and unemotional is best for all concerned.
I tell you what I don't want in a rejection - mention (occasionally even praise!) of the successful candidate. Why on earth would a Chair think that should go into a letter? I get it. She's hot and I'm not. STFU.
Yes, this is soooooo tacky! I've received a couple of those and I always wondered how people could be so socially inept to think that it is OK to write that to a rejected candidate. In some way, though, they made me feel better... knowing that at least I wouldn't have to work with the buffoon who wrote the letter.
Anyone in the Philly area should stage a march on the APA HQ to get the ads out. I understand that the 15th was a weekend, but it's the 17th now, and this lateness is not an isolated incident.
Just added March jobs to the wiki. They could be better, but there are a few more in there?
And what's going on with Pomona, does anyone know? Their t-t failed; then someone said they'd invited him/her to campus for a 2-year; now they're advertising the 2-year position?
I'm actually disappointed with the March ads. There are two in Virginia we didn't know about already, and that's it. Everything else was announced here or in the March 1 ads. Unless, of course, you're a senior Latinist or want to teach in Germany.
Oh, well, two more chances for gainful employment next academic year...
I disagree about naming the successful candidate in the rejection letter (praise is a separate issue). In the days before FV, it gave me an opportunity to figure out why someone was chosen over me for a job I cared about -- not in an over-analytical crazy stalker way, but in the "I see why they would have chosen someone who offered x" way. At the very least, isn't it the kind of transparency we want and that the wiki is attempting to offer?
Agreed w/ 7:24PM. When I received a rejection letter from a certain New England SLAC last year, I was interested to know who was the lucky candidate they hired over me, (and I immediately understood why they had). What I did not understand was why the author of the letter had told me it was wonderful to meet me in New Orleans(!!). How long ago was THAT APA/AIA? (A: 2003) Honestly? I had to laugh at the fact that an old rejection letter had been used: cut & paste new hire's name & institution. Imagine if such sloppiness had marred my cover letter - I wouldn't even have gotten an interview in the first place! But that's just one of the differences other than the sides of the table.
Meanwhile, when I was offered a job one of my first impulses was to call the other institutions where my candidacy was still under consideration. It had never, ever crossed my mind to email the remaining schools with the request to withdraw my application. I suppose it would be "funny", perhaps even charming if I had snail-mailed them all letters saying I had accepted an offer at another institution, but "it was delightful meeting with [them] in Dallas," (APA/AIA'99)...
Ha - this thread has become all schadenfreude, and it's fun to dream about revenge against SCs. But do remember that when you take a job, you're beginning a *career* in this field, and you can and will run into all these people over and over and over...so keep the revenge scenarios to yourself!
I am more than happy to run into these people and say hello but many search committee members, due to some misplaced sense of propriety or social dysfunction, seem to think that once you don't offer someone a job, they can go back to ignoring that you ever existed because, after all, you weren't good enough for them. Why not dream about reversing it and even talk about it (without naming names, of course...)?
Woah- Who said anything about seeking vengeance? One does not have to sacrifice his sense of humor on the altar of his *career.* Perhaps the missing ingredient in this whole process is precisely that - a sense of humor and the ability to laugh on occasion...rather than forever stifle our tears behind a facade of gravitas (or anonymous posts on FV, as the case may be). It should be obvious that the last sentence of my post was a joke and not in any way a recommendation or a call to arms! After all, I did call the heads of the SCs to inform them of my news. (Be the change you wish to see?) Likewise, when I wrote "I had to laugh," I actually did laugh - in a tender way, not a maniacal one. If anything, the error in the rejection letter reminded me of the humanity (yes!) of the members of the SC; that is, it suggested to me that my own, personal anxieties were making the whole process seem less humane than it actually was. This site serves many purposes, among them the opportunity to complain to like-minded individuals and seek some solace in the company of others' frustration. For my part, may I suggest that ironic discourse not be confused with action. Nor humor be confused with vendetta. Most important, though, is memory - that we constructively remember what it's like to be a candidate when we, over the course of our illustrious *careers*, are all on SCs; that we remember our prior neuroses and anxieties; and that we try to make the process as painless, transparent, pleasant, and self-aware as possible for all involved. (i.e. Be the change we wish to see!)
I had a nice campus visit in February of 2008. Everyone was very pleasant and kind to me, but I did not get the job, and I completely understood why they went with the person who did get the job. At this year's APA, I wound up alone in the elevator with someone from that school. Back at his campus, just ten months earlier, I had spent two hours in his office discussing their program with him. He had been to my job talk as well as my initial interview. I had on my name tag in the elevator, and I smiled and said hello to him and asked how he and his department were doing. He looked at me, gave a weak smile, and then started reading his program with great intensity, with no reply whatsoever. I could not figure out whether he truly did not remember who I was (he wasn't particularly old) or whether he just didn't want to speak to me for whatever reason. It seemed way too awkward to blurt out, "I'm XXX, I visited your campus in February, REMEMBER, congratulations on hiring So-and-so!" or some variation on that, so I just let it drop. I know that faculty meet a lot of people during job searches, but this was a little over the top.
Some SC members I have found quite polite and interested in staying in touch after a callback at which I didn't get the job. But the majority do ignore me when our paths cross, or give me a puzzled look of "who are you?" The worst was when one came up to a friend of mine and me in Philadelphia and spent time chatting with her while totally ignoring me after that puzzled "how do I know you?" look.
This last APA I tried to outblank and outdisdain the SC members who didn't hire me. I had a job so I didn't really care. You know what? Wasn't nearly as satisfying as I thought it would be. But I'm a stubborn, vengeful bastard. So I'm going to keep it up. It's actually less energy-consuming than the fake smile.
When a person desires to convert to Judaism, the rabbi turns them away three times. I've always followed this rule in dealing with students who are considering graduate school in classics.
At least recently, the job market in Classics has been less harsh than that in the broader humanities, and accordingly pursuing a Ph.D. in Classics was a less disastrous decision than pursuing one in other fields of the humanities.
On the other hand, as has been said a million times here, there are in fact too many people taking Ph.D.s in Classics.
Should we have another round of arguing about whose fault that is? Or should we just scroll up?
Did your rejection letter really say that? I was under the impression that they were doing on-campus interviews this week, with a decision to be made next. They had one person on campus a few weeks ago. Also, I've not received any such letter.
This latest mention of a failed search (NYU's job for a Roman archaeologist shared btwn Classics and Art History) is quite disturbing. While we all understand that uncertain economic times have forced some institutions to cancel or postpone searches, one fails to understand what seems to be a fairly high instance here of programs failing searches for reasons other than financing. We can sympathize with the SCs that it is hard to find the right fit, etc. but come on, people! This phenomenon seems like myopia and bad screening and general cluelessness!
Isn't this the Aphrodisias position that's failed at least once before? I'm guessing that one source of difficulty is that they want a relatively high profile person to fill this particular position, but members of this exceedingly small pool would likely choose better situations like at Berkeley or Michigan.
Could be because it's a joint position in two departments. That often creates a situation with competing ideas about what sort of person the hire should be and results in a hung jury.
I wonder if it isn't fairly normal for this many searches to fail. (Not at NYU, but in general.) Maybe it's just more obvious now with FV and the wiki.
Soooo, dude from Stanford got the Harvard gig and he's not even finished; and girl from Stanford got the Oklahoma gig, which advertised for lyric poetry, with a diss. on Homer and Aristotle...
Am I applying for jobs in Bizarro World or something?
Probably impossible/ fairly difficult to figure out (unless the APA wants to deal with it), but wouldn't it be interesting to have some ratios. How many PhDs from Uni. X were on the market? And how many of them found employment? I find placement percentages more interesting than raw numbers.
If 4 students from Uni A got jobs, but there were 15 students from Uni A on the market, I am less impressed by Uni A than by Uni B, which had 2 students on the market and both of them got jobs.
I'd be interested in knowing what type of candidate gets hired straight out of grad school v. after series of VAPs / adjuncting / post-docs (research v teaching?). And what's the shelf-life of candidates who bounce around after depositing. "Individual results may vary." It should all be published by the APA/AIA in the off-season.
Don't be so quick to bash Oberlin - non T-T gigs follow a different set of 'rules' than the T-T searches. It is not uncommon for VAPs and the like to be offered quickly.
Don't be so quick to bash Oberlin - non T-T gigs follow a different set of 'rules' than the T-T searches. It is not uncommon for VAPs and the like to be offered quickly.
True, but Oberlin's deadline was over a month ago, and there was no mention on the wiki even of phone interviews. The postdoc went to a former VAP, I hear; perhaps the other candidate was a similar insider.
Lack of communication re: VAPs doesn't really annoy me.
As for TT-jobs, well, that's a different story.
For example, say that a TT-job was accepted at least three weeks ago. Ongoing failure to notify re: its status riles me up. (Note: Website announcements, in my book, don't count.)
Here's looking at you, a certain public institution in the state of Texas.
True, but Oberlin's deadline was over a month ago, and there was no mention on the wiki even of phone interviews. The postdoc went to a former VAP, I hear; perhaps the other candidate was a similar insider.
The VAP process is just different - the formalities of the TT market are not in play. Often simply a candidate is chosen from the pool, they're brought out, and offered the job; if they come out and it's not a fit, then the dept. goes back to the pool. Don't immediately resort to conspiracy theory just b/c no one sent you an email saying 'we received your application'. While this field is a mess, not everything is duplicitous.
Texas is a pretty huge institution and the paperwork can take an inordinately long time (unlike a SLAC where they can wrap it all up in under a week). Besides, someone already reported here that the Latinist position was likely to be accepted, no? Have no idea about the Greek, though the Wiki does suggest they're going to be looking down the list.
I'd be interested in knowing what type of candidate gets hired straight out of grad school v. after series of VAPs / adjuncting / post-docs (research v teaching?). And what's the shelf-life of candidates who bounce around after depositing. "Individual results may vary."
I know both these individuals. One is a VAP. The other served in Adjunct Hell for a year. So neither are immediately out of grad school.
It's hard to say why one candidate gets a TT job straight out while others have to go through hoops (adjuncting, VAP-ing) before landing a job with real security. In many cases, it seems to come down to specifically what they work on, and the needs of departments.
Many people seem to think that 5-7 years is likely the maximum, and that's almost an absolute maximum, shelf life, but this can depend on many factors. If you have been constantly employed since doing the walk and getting the big hood, either in adjuncting, or better, in VAP jobs, you can remain viable. Publishing during that time will definitely help.
Sadly, there will always be departments which will want nothing to do with those who have been on the market for a few years, and will prefer to take some shiny new PhD from one of the "elite" programs. But those places tend to be the other "elite" programs. The vast majority of jobs will be at more modest institutions, and at those places good sense can often prevail over snobbery.
When you need someone who can teach 3 courses immediately in the Fall to students whose level of college preparation is far short of the Ivies, then you may be more interested in someone who has a few years of teaching in the trenches than some shiny new elite ABD (who'll only defend that very Spring) who has never stood in front of a class in his/her life as the instructor of record with no safety net.
Soooo, dude from Stanford got the Harvard gig and he's not even finished; and girl from Stanford got the Oklahoma gig, which advertised for lyric poetry, with a diss. on Homer and Aristotle...
Am I applying for jobs in Bizarro World or something?
SCs can be strange beasts. They come across something, or someone, they like more, and choose accordingly. Don't look for rationality in the process. --------- On another topic, this is far firmer than fama, but the Rutgers job has been accepted. If the person who has it does not wish to be named at this time, that is his/her choice.
Re: 12:47AM, I think the poster did not mean UT-Austin, but UT-San Antonio.
My bad. Yeah, that was weeks ago. Didn't apply there but boy should they have let you know. But hey, one year I got a rejection in like May for a job that was accepted, not merely offered, in Feb. Hell, I know people who never formally got rejected. Hold on, maybe there are some positions out there from 2003 for which I'm still a candidate? Just letting you all know I'm still available. Bit moldy but very much available.
I think it is really reprehensible that you assume that Stanford PhDs got hired without any rationality on the part of the search committees. Perhaps they were good candidates. For some reason, that seems not to be an option for many of you. The fact is, Stanford had a respectable but not outstanding program for many years, then they built up a really good program, and now their students, who always got decent placements anyway, are doing really well on the market. Isn't that what we want? Change and improvement rather than departments frozen in hierarchies and tiers for all time? And the people who got the jobs are hard workers and nice people. I'm not saying that other candidates on the market aren't equally nice and hard-working - I just find it weird that whatever school is doing well in a given year suddenly becomes part of a vast conspiracy where SCs are booting out stellar candidates from Program X because they are star-struck with Program Y. The second that Program Z catches up and passes Program Y, then all the Program Y affiliates jump on the bandwagon with Program X to accuse Program Z candidates of being inferior but shiny, and suddenly Program Z is the underhanded, fishy program of the year. And so on, and so on. Will it end, I guess, when all of you get jobs - which each one of you will, no doubt, richly deserve, without any hint of conspiracy. No - of course it won't end, because then you'll be the ones maligned on this site, and amidst your good fortune in landing a good job, you will know how it feels to have your candidacy, value, and hard-work publicly attacked simply because you got a job and someone else didn't.
Why do people think that UT is going down their list for Hellenists? As reported earlier, one of the three Hellenists chose not to come for the campus visit; that leaves two who were in the running. UT offered the job to one of them. Presumably it was the one who wasn't offered the job who took the TT elsewhere as listed on the wiki, rather than wait on the off chance that the first one refused. At least that's what I would figure unless I see something about the UT offer being declined on the wiki, or the third Hellenist also accepting a job elsewhere. Is my logic flawed?
Forgive me if this seems to divert the stream of the current debate, but I think it is relevant in a way that may get us beyond two-dimensional caricatures of Princeford villains. I've been meaning for a while now to post a data-mining experiment I did with the tenure-track jobs for material culture people. Months back, there was a not particularly useful debate about whether philologists or archaeologists get more than their share of jobs in the field. What I'd like to add is some data on how long MC people have to wait to get permanent jobs. I've used the data from the 2007/2008 market, the only reasonably complete set we have thus far. Taking the 19 tenure-track jobs from that year listed as MC positions or landed by a candidate listed as a MC specialist, I calculated the average number of years beyond the PhD, assigning 0 for a new PhD, 1 for a 2007 PhD, etc. The average (both mean and median) was 5.5 years. I have not calculated the average time for the control group, but I think that even the most die-hard philologist would admit that five and a half years is much longer than the average time for philologists. Also noteworthy is a correspondence between the few who did land TT jobs quickly and the "Princeford" schools; of the five who landed TT jobs less than two years out of grad. school, four were from Stanford (x2), Berkeley, and Harvard. Comments?
In the spirit of March Madness, one of the analogies we can use to describe the plight of MCers is that they're not guaranteed an "automatic bid" when they graduate. Almost all the clarch positions explicitly designated as such are meant for senior, or at the minimum advanced junior, scholars. This is plainly obvious looking at all the senior MC positions offered this year. So MCers fresh out of grad school have to claw and scratch for an "at-large" bid. They have to rely on secondary skills to get themselves generalist jobs, which often takes year of VAPing to develop. Once they get positions and tenure, their positions are often designated as archaeology ones, but once they move on or retire, an archaelogist rarely refills the position.
Before people raise a fuss, I'm not saying that individual philologists get jobs automatically, but that there are a relatively large number of positions where one with their skill sets is guaranteed to fill it. So Princeford MCers fight to land any gig while a bunch of philologists from 2nd tier schools are just as competitive on the market if not more so - supply and demand.
FWIW, this is a common plight for archaeologists whether they seek out a home in anthro, art history, history, etc. Where this puts young MCers, I do not know. I'm just glad I gave up archaeology to focus on history.
Can't you all just hear the violins playing in the background for the poor MC people?
I'd add that some philologists can and do take longer than 5.5 years, and it is often the folks from non-top schools that find themselves in that mess. Same with historians (who aren't covered in your study). I frankly don't care much about the overall average of years each sub-discipline takes; I just want a job, as do we all.
So why are we encouraging students to pursue archaeology if even the Princeford ones cannot get jobs? I think this is pretty irresponsible. Either support it well, which is obviously not happening judging by the availability of jobs, or drop it as a primary speciality.
Seriously, we should just line them up and shoot them. Why divert precious resources that could go to a couple more real classicists. Maybe instead of wasting time in the dirt a couple more invaluable translations of Homer can be produced as a result.
OK, I am really, really sick of the implied, "My sub-discipline (whatever it may be, MC, philology, history) suffers more than yours does!" on this latest thread.
Look. There are highly qualified people out there - not all from southwestern Idaho State - who aren't getting jobs. Maybe it's because they're obviously sabre-tooths in the making. Maybe it's because they're lazy and obviously won't make tenure. Maybe it's because they work on something really stupid and useless. But there are quite a few who publish, who teach well, who interview well, and never get the break. I have a t-t, but I count a few of those still searching (in each sub-discipline) among my friends and acquaintances. And it won't help the MC one, psychologically, to know that she's taking the usual amount of time in her sub-discipline to find a job, nor will it help the philologist one to know he's taking longer.
BTW, is there anyone who knows, in general terms, how our 15-interview-sabretooth-in-the-making made out? TT job? Postdoc?
Well, since s/he's a fictional construct, I imagine he got 10 job offers and played them off against one another till someone gave him tenure and 100K/year, plus a 1-1 load and a full sabbatical every other year.
Is it possible that I have even less hope for classics after reading the last several posts? Soon we might all share the same fate as our sabretooths (minus the bully pulpit and plum chaired positions).
Weren't we sure that our sabretooth-in-training had an interview with one of the early schools? Temple? Rutgers? One of the SC chairs said as much and then the SIN went in hiding for a while before re-emerging briefly (if is really was the same person the second time).
The fact is, Stanford had a respectable but not outstanding program for many years, then they built up a really good program, and now their students, who always got decent placements anyway, are doing really well on the market. Isn't that what we want? Change and improvement rather than departments frozen in hierarchies and tiers for all time?
This is correct. However, it's not as though Stanford's strategy of using dump trucks full of money to entice famous senior Classicists to come work there is one that's generally available to programs trying to improve their standing.
Then go to Stanford or a program that can do that. Don't blame them for trying. If you want some sort of state-run university system where each school gets the exact same amount of money and then attracts faculty based on who knows what basis, then find a country that offers it and move there. But if your complaint is that you chose to go to one school, and you're pissed that the school you chose doesn't have enough money to pay really good senior scholars what they're worth, well, then that's either your bad decision or your failure to get accepted at a program that had more money behind it. We can talk about inequity at an earlier time, when perhaps you weren't privileged enough to get on an educational path leading straight to Stanford, but the fact is, there are graduate students at Stanford, past and present, who came from some really humble beginnings, worked hard, got scholarships, did well in undergrad, and got accepted to Stanford, and chose it - well before their latest 'fancy' addition. Are you really blaming them for choosing a place that ended up helping them get jobs? Seriously? In fact, I am good friends with a Stanford grad who came from very humble beginnings, got to go to a decent undergrad on a scholarship, and work his/her little behind off, and got into some top programs. This was awhile back, when there were only a couple of big names there. That person liked where the program was going, and turned down some bigger-name programs because they thought the Stanford folks were a better match. After that person's arrival, some prominent senior scholars started showing up, because Stanford, which has always spent a lot of money on the sciences to the detriment of the humanities, decided to make a real commitment to bring up the fuzzie side to techie levels. So my friend made a good choice at a good time. So Stanford paid some senior scholars they money they deserve for working hard. So you chose a school that doesn't have enough money to do that. Now Stanford is evil because of all that? And my friend, who ended up with a decent job, is somehow unfairly privileged? Come on.
Anon. 9:17 - I agree that Stanford deserves its success, but has it occurred to you that people don't always have a choice of grad schools, because they're late bloomers academically, because they came to Latin/Greek late, because of personal issues? And then they may stay for any number of other reasons? Maybe this means they end up at some place that's not Stanford inter alia.
In my case, I was helping to nurse a terminally-ill parent. So, yeah, I turned down some "better" schools for a school close by. Now I have a PhD from there, and I should be looked down on by folks like you for not going to Stanford?
"I think it is really reprehensible that you assume that Stanford PhDs got hired without any rationality on the part of the search committees. Perhaps they were good candidates."
This deserves a serious reply. The people who got these jobs no doubt deserve them. The one thing that never, ever dawns on many posters in this space is that there may actually be something about themselves that is keeping them from getting a job. I know a candidate who several years ago sent out 100 applications and didn't even get a single on campus interview. S/he blamed the whole universe for this lack of success, but never stopped to wonder if there might not be something personal that was getting in the way of advancing beyond the first round of interviews. I don't at all mean to suggest that everyone who is having a hard time finding a job falls into this category. But it's worth considering...
To 10:28: I don't know how to reply to your reply. I tell you that Stanford was an underdog in Classics as recently as ten years ago, and you tell me that somehow Stanford is looking down on you because now they have expanded their program and their students are doing well on the market? Of course if your ideas are good, and you are rejected from a job search solely because your good ideas aren't attached to a fancy pedigree, then you have a right to be upset. My complaint was merely that few people on this board seemed willing to go out on a limb and surmise that -gasp! - maybe the Stanford folks got their job offers because the committee liked their ideas the most and thought they were the best fit for the department. But you persist in thinking that somehow they don't deserve the jobs they got - because, of course, YOU deserve their jobs, clearly. And I still don't know how to reply to you. So you turned down other programs to stay at home to help out with an ill parents. Of course there were going to be consequences. I chose a less prestigious job because I thought it made more sense given my particular family situation. I am well aware that my choice will affect my ability to move to other schools in the future. Is the problem that you think you should be given some sort of affirmative action advantage because you didn't go to Stanford or Princeton? If that's what you're driving at, then say so. How would you make the job process 'fair' in your view? Blind first sortings of applications? Affirmative action job placements? Contests between candidates? Having the dean pick the candidate rather than departmental members who might be inclined to hire the student of a friend? What exactly is it, 10:28, that is unfair and that you would change, and how?
As for 10:43 - my warm and fuzzy anecdote is no less instructive for your mocking it. Would you prefer that jobs go to pseudo-aristocratic youth, rather than people who worked hard, regardless of childhood socio-economic status?
In a blatant attempt to change the subject a bit, can someone explain Penn's success this year? Is it just a random year? I know that Penn has a great program, but I'm wondering if there's anything a program does to gear itself for success. Are they poring in money like Stanford? Are they improving their placement efforts among the faculty and staff?
I came from a middle class background and went to excellent state schools. Neither bootstraps nor silver spoons for me. And, professionally, an admixture of success and setback. John Hughes might say that I'm living the American Dream.
Fact #1: Stanford has put together a really good program in the last ten years.
Fact #2: Many Stanford grads have done some interesting and valuable work during that time.
Observation #1: Trolls frequently take control of this board.
Observation #2: While usually expressing an extreme position, a good troll masks her/his view in the rhetoric of normalcy.
Observation #3: Trolls come from a wide variety of academic (i.e. Stanford to OSNYUNC-Austinadison) and socioeconomic (i.e. John Bender to Ricky Stratton) backgrounds.
Moral: Don't feed the fucking trolls.
In other news, do people expect that there might be a "flood" (relatively speaking) of VAP/adjunct positions in April or May?
I think 10:28 quite specifically agreed with you that Stanford deserved its success, Anon. 9:17...their point was then that, as in pretty much everything in life, we don't always get a choice to go to the good schools, or the schools that will become good while we're there. Nor did I hear 10:28 complain that s/he was losing jobs to the undeserving, only that s/he felt looked down upon, which frankly the tone of your original post also suggested to me. So cool it, and quit jumping down 10:28's throat.
Here is the rub: there are plenty of SC members out there who do in fact look down at candidates with degrees from non-Princefordian places simply b/c their degrees are from non-Princefordian places. It happens: I have seen it not a few times. Ironically (or predictably) these SC members have not been the best and the brightest. Yet they are able to shape departments based on the name of the school on the degree. That, methinks, is something to contest and refuse actively. Whether these particular candidates hired are in fact the best fit should not be assumed simply b/c they have a Princfordian degree, as some here have done. That is just silly.
In other news, do people expect that there might be a "flood" (relatively speaking) of VAP/adjunct positions in April or May?
I've heard this theory. I doubt it. I don't think the temp market is that far behind last year's at this point, but that's just an impression. There are always schools announcing late, though, plus CAMWS to go through.
Whoa, 9:17 needs to switch to decaf. My point that Stanford had gone shopping wasn't a criticism of Stanford. Of course they should try to attract faculty with their resources if they have them. I was just saying that they're not a great example of how just any middling program can enhance itself in short order; they're an example of how a middling program at a vastly wealthy university can enhance itself in short order, and there aren't many vastly wealthy universities.
How that spurred 9:17's bizarre, fevered rant is beyond me.
Here is the rub: there are plenty of SC members out there who do in fact look down at candidates with degrees from non-Princefordian places simply b/c their degrees are from non-Princefordian places. It happens: I have seen it not a few times.
It does happen. I know definitely of one search last year where one candidate was head and shoulders above another, in terms of pubs, experience, research specialty, teaching, potential, yada yada...but the SC kept pulling back from going over to her/him as the choice because they kept worrying about the quality of his/her education (a Top 10-12 program, second-tier to folks like 9:17). Get real. That's not so relevant when pubs, teaching, and success in the field have all demonstrated this person is the real deal. Instead, the job went to...you guessed it, a newbie from a school that starts with a letter near Q.
9:17 did not get his/her degree from a top-tier school - probably ranked more about 20-25. 9:17 is not a troll simply because you make jokes about decaf and ranting. 9:17 has been on search committees and always has hired based on CVs and ideas, so saying that s/he looks down on non-Princeton and Stanford CVs is just wrong. 9:17 certainly does not look down on his/herself and has hired non-elite degree holders. And you still did not answer 9:17's question - since you think something about the system is deeply unfair, could you please a) outline exactly what is unfair, in your opinion, and b) what solution you would propose.
Here's a question, since folks keep bringing up the term: what are the 'top tier' schools in 2009? Anyone want to venture a ranking of the top 15 or so?
I also would like to know exactly what is unfair and how to fix it. I am trying to figure out from some of the above posts what the exact complaint is. There seems to be a general consensus that everyone should do his or her time in the VAP/postdoc trenches before getting hired. I'm not sure that this is the case. Search committees do have the right, in my opinion, to think that someone fresh out of school without pubs actually has a lot of promise, and it would be good to hire them. They know it's a gamble - sometimes they get burned, sometimes it works out. It's the same for people with pubs. Sometimes it is proof that they can get the job done, sometimes they use up all their good ideas on an article or two and never come up with anything else. The SCs are hiring, in part, on the basis of whether they think the candidate's research program for the next 5-20 years has promise. There were two near ad hominem attacks on Stanford ABDs over this issue. So Question 1: Is it 'unfair' or 'wrong' to hire an ABD over someone who has graduated and has an article or two? Should schools be required to have some sort of metric for hiring that prevents them from doing this?
Question 2: There seems to be a lot of agreement that you should hire on the basis of what is on the CV and in the research statement only, and a general belief that SCs are not doing that - they are hiring brand names, so to speak. In other words, what all these SCs are doing is reading crappy cover letters, looking at blank CVs, and hiring solely because they believe that the person got a Princeford education. Is that kind of on the mark? I don't think that is what you're saying, so maybe you could clarify what exactly Question 2 is: something along the lines of, SCs are giving too much weight to where a degree came from, when in fact candidates are equal in all other respects?
Third question - there seems to be some implication that while it is perfectly reasonable for Stanford to have 'gone shopping', this gives them an unfair advantages, because other schools can't buy top scholars. So what would be the solution here - some sort of draft, where scholars are randomly matched with schools and all paid salaries regulated by the APA/AIA?
Actually, more regulation seems to be kind of what's behind the complaints. I am guessing you all are not free marketers. So maybe things should be regulated by the APA/AIA, with some sort of matching program like medical residencies?
I want to chime in re: pubs. Sometimes it does seem "unfair" that someone who has 2-3 pubs doesn't get hired over an ABD with none. However, I have seen search committees hire because someone had decent pubs, and then never get anything else out of that person, because they'd used up all their moxy, so to speak. Also sometimes the pubs hurt them, because they were lackluster, when in fact the ABD is an unproven quantity, who might sparkle or might not.
9:17, I don't know how you can deny that certain "pedigrees" translate into more opportunities. You can't spell "classics" without "class"! On the other hand, I think that many people without pedigreed degrees do well for themselves and many people with them struggle just like the rest of us to get a toe in the door. But there is an undeniable advantage to having a degree from certain programs and not others. The real rub comes from the fact that the "it-program" changes from year to year.
Should Stanford's wealth be held against the classics dept. and its "products"? I don't think so. Other classics dept. also have the good fortune of a) belonging to wealthy institutions and b) having the support of the administration to go on hiring sprees in order to develop into big-time players. How many actually manage to pull it off? And how many others are in wealthy universities yet wallow in mediocrity? My point is, money isn't everything. Kudos to Stanford for translating money into academic success. But that can change.
Also sometimes the pubs hurt them, because they were lackluster, when in fact the ABD is an unproven quantity, who might sparkle or might not.
This is true, of course - some people who have published shouldn't have. (But there are people out there with great articles, or even books published or book contracts with top presses who don't have t-t jobs.) But note there's a flip side: sometimes SCs will fall in love with an ABD on the basis of potential, only to see that potential fizzle out and never materialize. A top school placed several ABDs over the past few years - three of whom then still took 2 years to defend. Those people are now looking for new jobs so they can restart their tenure clock, having wasted a third of it on something that should have been done before they started their job. So to me it seems like six of one and half a dozen of another. Risky either way. Me, I would prefer the proven record of experience, but others may not.
Frankly I think the job should go to the best candidate for that department. I don't care if they went to Stanford or Hole-in-the-Wall. That means, though, that SCs must not be blinded by "potential," and that fellow candidates must not look for excuses to find themselves slighted at every turn.
9:17 never said that pedigrees didn't translate into opportunities. You go to a good program, you hope to have opportunities. Again, I think what you are saying - and I'm seriously trying to get this right, not start a fight - is that there are crappy candidates from brand name programs who are hired solely on the basis of having gone to a brand name program, which apparently did not do them any good because their ideas suck. They are getting jobs instead of people who went to good but not brand name programs, who have better ideas, who got a better education, and who deserve the jobs more but are losing out just because of where they got their degree. If SCs saw a research letter from each and met with each in person, without knowing where their degrees came from, they would choose the person who did not go to the brand name program. However, once that brand name gets flashed in front of them, they are blinded to reality. Is that a fair assessment of your complaint? Again, I'm seriously not looking for a fight, so please don't say I'm a troll. I honestly want to understand your complaint and what it is you see as unfair. As I said, I'm not from an elite program, and I have done hiring before, so if I'm hiring unfairly, I'd like to know how to fix it.
Anon 10:21 describes a scenario that I too have seen happen in the hiring process: SC members "blinded" by an "elite" degree (whatever the flavor of the year is, indeed - but let us be real, there are only about 10 flavors in this popsickle stand). One upshot of this is that the "Classicists" are on the whole made by a very small number of institutions that are thus able to reproduce the very shape of the discipline. Someone wrote earlier about an apparent lack of faith some of us have in the "free market" approach. Well, look outside your window to see what it has done to the economy where you live. The way our field conducts itself - i.e., its business as usual - seems to have produced the very perception/reality that Classics is moribund. Opening up the field more could be one way to inject some life into it. One solution: SC members in all stripes and ranks should loudly fight against any efforts to allow a degree from an "elite" school unduly influence the process. As some of us have noted here, this DOES happen. Well, who is fighting it?
How do we keep an elite degree from unduly influencing the job search process. One of the main barriers is, of course, that if you are trained to think a certain way, you are going to like candidates who think the way you do, and that homogeneity is due to the fact that you all were trained in the same environment. So even if you remove names and degrees from research statements, you still are not going to remove the tendency for search committees to choose people who think like they do because of similar training. So how, then, do you encourage different sorts of thinking, other than having the APA regulate hiring for a period of five years to ensure diversity on search committees?
9:17 is not a troll simply because you make jokes about decaf and ranting. ... you still did not answer 9:17's question - since you think something about the system is deeply unfair, could you please a) outline exactly what is unfair, in your opinion, and b) what solution you would propose.
I think you're arguing with three different people and assuming it's the same person. Someone else called you a troll. Someone else said that s/he felt despised for her/his degree. I said that Stanford improved quickly by throwing huge sacks of cash around, which isn't a widely available strategy and thus not a very good example of how most graduate programs can improve their standing.
I also said you need to switch to decaf, because after I made that pretty straightforward point you went off on a bizarre rant and threw around a bunch of wild accusations about my degree envy and my spite towards Stanford: not only do I not have either of those things, but there was also no information of any kind in my comment to suggest that I have either of those things.
So, just to be clear:
Stanford using wealth to recruit faculty = perfectly fine
other universities that can follow that path = few
unfairness in this arrangement = possibly nil
policies that I would prescribe for remedying this putative unfairness = none
caffeine = a stimulant that should be enjoyed in moderation
One of the main barriers is, of course, that if you are trained to think a certain way, you are going to like candidates who think the way you do, and that homogeneity is due to the fact that you all were trained in the same environment. So even if you remove names and degrees from research statements, you still are not going to remove the tendency for search committees to choose people who think like they do because of similar training.
In terms of training and intellectual outlook, there's actually a lot of diversity among the top dozen or so programs. Harvard training looks very different from Princeton training, which looks very different from Berkeley training, etc (to say nothing of UK or Italian or German training). So I don't really buy that it's a matter of like being attracted to like.
There doesn't seem to be much fundamentally wrong with the system of hiring. There is probably quite a bit wrong with the people operating that system, both committees and candidates.
Having failed to get a t-t job now for 6 years despite numerous interviews and fly-backs, I have considered that I might be at fault (it is, in fact, my working hypothesis). My unreasonable suggestion would be to introduce something similar to blind review of articles. Committees explain clearly to those candidates they interview why they did not hire that candidate.
This would be very helpful, but for obvious reasons it will not happen.
Then what is the problem? Perhaps it is not your problem, because I certainly did recognize that there were different people chiming in, but did not feel like inserting the time stamps for each different poster. Someone did, however, imply (by saying that they were applying in Bizarro World or whatever phrase they used - followed by a reply from another poster that the SCs hired without rationality) that two Stanford ABDs, whom they basically named by stating what jobs they got, perhaps should not have been offered the positions they were offered.
So maybe you, 12:13, do not have a complaint or think anything is unfair, but someone on this board does, and other posters have implied that they do also. So I was asking the collective you to specify what they are unhappy about and how they think it can be fixed. If you are not part of the collective you, then great! I am glad you are happy with the state of the discipline. I still would like to hear from the other posters what their complaints are and how to fix them. And I still mean it with all sincerity.
A more practical lesson from all this might be that program specialization helps. Let's face it, Stanford isn't even playing the game in much of Classics (read: Latin). But they attract excellent Hellenists and archaeologists, they train them well, and they place them. Someone will probably start screaming about balkanization of the field, but I'm not sure that's especially helpful. Programs should stop trying to cover all their bases - that way you end up with broadly trained students who can't speak with authority about anything, and so don't get a job.
I would like to point out that, from the point of view of SCs, just as there is a prejudice for Princefordian degrees, there is also a prejudice against them.
Schools that aren't themselves Princefordian-league run the risk of losing that Princefordian they just hired after only a couple of years when the Princefordian trades up to somewhere 'better.' So sometimes SCs who have a clear sense of their department and what they want out of the new faculty member will prefer a non-Princefordian who looks more like someone who wants to stay and will share their departmental objectives.
Not sure if that's right or fair either, but it happens. And keep in mind that, realistically speaking, most jobs are at non-Princefordian schools.
But you will be surprised how many departments roll the dice and go after candidates out of their league. It's partially a result of the dearth of jobs in classics, where it's fairly common for lower-tier schools to snag graduates from top-tier programs, unlike most other disciplines (how often does a Ph.D. in economics from Chicago or Stanford teach at Middle Missouri State College?). Still I know of several instances this year where SCs foolishly wasted a campus invite on candidates with tenure at an Ivy or departments found themselves with their recent hire moving to a bigger name school. Besides hirability, I think departments would be wise to also consider retainability. If this results in a bias against Princefordians, so be it.
"Soooo, dude from Stanford got the Harvard gig and he's not even finished; and girl from Stanford got the Oklahoma gig, which advertised for lyric poetry, with a diss. on Homer and Aristotle...
Am I applying for jobs in Bizarro World or something?"
-The Harvard Society of Fellows explicitly states that it accepts Fellows who are at the dissertation stage of their PhD as long as they are within a year of finishing. -The Oklahoma advertisement (Oct. Placement Service) explicitly stated that "the area of specialization is CLASSICAL RHETORIC or Greek lyric poetry." The girl from Stanford has a diss on "Homeric Rhetoric and Aristotle's Rhetoric," according to the website that has aroused so much agitation over the past few days.
"can someone explain Penn's success this year? Is it just a random year?"
I think it's partially random, but it's also a result of some existing factors. Looking over the four successful candidates "outed" on the wiki, two have VAPing experience while two are ABD. The two VAPs appear to be teaching at top-notch programs. Based on what I hear from friends, Penn grads are usually well-trained to teach and given ample opportunities to do so. I know my program didn't give me nearly as many teaching opportunities. This probably helped the two VAPs get their current positions and the two ABDs get hired straight out of school.
One of the ABDs filled a religion/Late Antique type position. Penn is strong at linking with other departments, which can be a plus and minus. It often puts them at a disadvantage when competing for mainstream positions, but when a more interdisciplinary position comes up, and they fit it, they are obviously strong candidates. Besides religious studies, Penn is also strong in history, art history, philosophy, archeology, etc, so there are ample opportunities to forge links with other programs and produce interesting research.
When looking at grad schools, this attracted me to Penn but in the end I went for another program because I didn't have the guts to branch out a bit from the mainstream. I have some regrets but I'm in a good TT position now so it all worked out.
As often happens, someone was completely flipping out over an entirely imaginary injustice, and the whole hissy fit could have been avoided by the smallest bit of research (if going to the APA website can be called "research").
So, why wasn't the hissy fit avoided? Because some people come here looking for opportunities to flip out and specifically don't want to encounter any information that could take away one of those opportunities.
I would like to point out that, from the point of view of SCs, just as there is a prejudice for Princefordian degrees, there is also a prejudice against them.
Several weeks ago I listened to an Ivy PhD friend rant about a PhD from a "lesser" school taking a job from him...the argument was that the "lesser" PhD only got the job because someone on the SC was from the same school. I found the complaint hilarious, as 8 times out of 10 it would probably go the other way.
I would also add that it may not be that meaningful to look at a program's success from such a limited data set. Perhaps the successful Stanford candidates this year are just good students and would have done well at Michigan, Rutgers, Harvard, or wherever. What attracts graduate students is usually big names and overall reputation, for better or for worse.
To change the topic slightly: Are folks thinking--perhaps hopefully like I am--that the jobs canceled this year will be re-opened again this coming fall? Or will we potentially be seeing more shrinkage in the market as a result of the economic downturn? I'm starting to worry about the latter...
I suspect you will see a fair number of one- or two-year positions, as administrations deal with filling teaching needs without committing to tenure-track lines. If there is an upswing in tenure-track lines, it won't be be next year but the year after, as things (hopefully) stabilize. However, as has been pointed out before, the last couple of years were abnormally 'good', so don't expect that things will be super-duper great.
They are saying that the economy will bottom out this November at the earliest, so the market will definitely not improve next year, unless universities severely overreacted this year (which I don't think is the case). Since there is a bit of a lag time, I think the absolute earliest we will see a rebound to the market is 2010-2011. But who's to say that the classics market will even ever rebound back to the heights it reached in 2006?
There are many factors that will come into play. Take into account that many people near retirement may have lost nearly 30% of their retirement savings with the stock market downturn. Some (not all) of those faculty members may opt to stay on for a couple more years to try to rebuild a little of what they have lost before finally moving on.
Even when there are retirements, it is not up to the department whether that line will be replaced or not. It is up to a dean. Deans are not necessarily going to agree that there must be a replacement. They are often under pressure from higher administrators to cut budget lines wherever and whenever they can.
There may very well be an upswing in term positions (VAPs and lecturers) this Fall in place of TT jobs, but not likely a huge upswing. Be prepared for a bad market.
Hopefully, it's not distasteful, but I think that the little spat above about SCs and fairness in hiring leaves out many factors that have an influence on the process, but which candidates rarely, often never, are aware of.
These are nothing new. If you go back far enough in this now outsized line of comments, you'll find them mentioned on occasion.
While we would all like the hiring process to be fair, transparent, and based upon reasonable standards that everyone could agree upon and which would result in the "best" people getting the job in every case, frankly, such thinking is naive. I am not trying to be a troll or stir up the hive here. But I think a reality check is in order.
When a department is given permission to hire a new faculty member, the first line of restrictions can come from the dean. In certain cases, and I know this from personal experiences shared by past SC members in several different fields, not just our little pond of classics, the deans have even told the department point blank: "you will hire an X." I put an X there, since that X can vary in different cases. But there may already be a restriction placed upon the hiring committee from the start. If they do not come back to the dean with a candidate that is an X, the dean will not make an offer, and the search will fail.
If the search has no restrictions from the deanery, the next stage at which it can already become a less than level playing field is in the composition of the search committee. You're dealing with individuals here, so there are no general statements that can be made. You can have a group of conscientious people who will strive their best to find the candidate with the most merit. You can have a cabal of knaves who already have a clear idea of what they want ("let's call up my good friend at XXXXXXXX, where I got my degree, and see who their most 'promising' graduate student is").
Now even when you have your open-minded, merit-oriented search committee, things can happen. They might be searching for a Greek philologist, even if they don't say they are (the "generalist" cattle call ads), but they come across an eye catching Roman poetry person. They could have an ad for a Roman Republic prose position, but instead offer the job to someone who works on the Roman Empire. Why? Because they liked what they saw in that person more than what they saw in the rest of the field of candidates.
It's nice to think that it's a meritocracy and the best rise to the positions they deserve, but frankly, that's naive. Someone mentioned "rationality" above and while SCs are not irrational (that goes too far), they are human beings, and so are prey to personal preferences, biases, and even the occasional whim.
If you look at one particular program, which will remain unnamed, and examine their recent hires for the past eight years or so, you will find that they have all come from only three schools, all of a certain type. Clearly, the senior faculty have a certain preference, and those from other schools should probably not bother applying.
So, what reforms am I advocating? Shall I call the masses of disappointed candidates to revolt?
I have no reforms to offer, and no rallying cry to yell. But let's stop pretending that it is a meritocracy.
I'm not casting aspersions at those who have gotten jobs. People who angrily rail at the "Princefordians" and the like may let off some steam, but they accomplish little else. And on the other hand, those who angrily rise to the defense of those from the "elite" under attack also err, since not everyone who graduates from an "elite" program is good. I've been around long enough to come across a good number of mediocrities with prestigious pedigrees.
People must go into this process with their eyes open. The power of your ideas are important. The quality of your degree can matter. How you behave in an interview can make all the difference. Projecting a professional air, neither arrogant swot nor groveling job-seeker, will serve you well. Sometimes, it is you.
But everyone, please keep this in mind as well: sometimes it wasn't you. Sometimes, you can do everything right: have the most brilliant thesis, a record of teaching, publications, a professional, friendly air during interviews, and you can still wind up being an also-ran. Why? Because the SC liked another candidate better, or it may be that another candidate went to the same school as one of the SC members, and had not only a very strong letter of reference sent to recommend them, but even a phone call or better yet, a word or two from their mentor at the alma mater to the SC member during those "receptions" held at the APA every year. A group of us once when quite bored at one of these functions tried to alleviate the tedium somewhat by watching such activities and providing the appropriate commentary.
It is not a fair and transparent process in the end, but there's nothing that can be done about it. Every hiring department will have its own individual needs—and quirks. You have to sell yourself to their needs—and quirks—as best you can. When you find a place that matches what you have to offer, you will find a job.
The only thing you can do is prepare yourself in the best ways possible. There are plenty of resources linked on the main FV page. Beyond that, the process is entirely out of your hands.
I am afraid this turned into a much longer piece than I had intended…
I still 'angrily rise to the defense of those from the "elite" under attack' when they are as good as named. That was just tacky and mean-spirited, and I am surprised that that post wasn't deleted.
Here's another suggestion. Require graduate students to take part in at least one search.
Give the confused searcher some practical sense of what goes on behind closed doors. It need not necessarily be in Classics, if the department makes no hires during a students time.
I hope you will forgive me, long-time lurker, if I point out that I made substantially the same point a bit more concisely.
Anonymous said: …when they are as good as named. That was just tacky and mean-spirited, and I am surprised that that post wasn't deleted.
I agree that ad hominem attacks should never be tolerated, and that post should probably have been edited or deleted. There should be no further discussion about whether any specific candidate "deserved" a particular job or not. We can talk in generalities, but no more discussions of specific, named individuals. Only time can tell whether a person "deserved" the position or not.
poldy said...
Here's another suggestion. Require graduate students to take part in at least one search.
A very interesting idea, but it will never be acted upon in practice. Searches have a high level of confidentiality involved. There might be quite a few senior members who would look askance at the idea of mere graduate students being allowed to see what they have written in confidence. It does not matter if the search is in another department.
I hope you will forgive me, long-time lurker, if I point out that I made substantially the same point a bit more concisely.
tootle-pip,
poldy
Certainly. Brevity has never been one of my strengths.
I do not get a 'tinkerty tonk' however?
And with that, I think it's time to return to the tenebrae where all good lurkers…lurk.
"A very interesting idea, but it will never be acted upon in practice."
Fortunately, the person who asked for suggestions never said they need to be workable! However, unlike my earlier suggestion, this one has precedents. I know of at least one department at a public institution that has a policy of requiring at least one graduate student take part in hiring.
A very interesting idea, but it will never be acted upon in practice. Searches have a high level of confidentiality involved. There might be quite a few senior members who would look askance at the idea of mere graduate students being allowed to see what they have written in confidence.
Actually, at some institutions it's normal for search committees to include a graduate student member, and (at least in my experience) it works very well.
I've been a part of a search as a graduate student and I think it's a great practice.
For one, it keeps egos in check, especially those belonging to misbehaving sabretooths (as I was told later on by surprised colleagues). For some reason, it's okay for sabretooths to go on the prowl when alone with colleagues, but a student in their midst gives them pause (which leads me to believe that at least these particular sabretooth knew what they normally do is wrong).
The other thing that a search let me see is how unsystematic and sometimes random the process really is. Don't get me wrong, the SC members were good people, but being on a SC was the last thing most of them wanted to do on top of their everyday duties. In short, shite happens and you do your best. Some details get obsessed over that really shouldn't be and other details get lost when more efforts should have been made to address them. It's a messy process conducted by mortals that I believe are usually trying their best - with varying results.
Anyone heard anything on CAMWS interviews yet? IIRC, Calvin, Union, Case Western, and Wisconsin plan to interview there. Wisconsin's CAMWS due date was today, but the rest were a week ago.
Do you really think committees are going to get through the 100+ apps they got in only a week?
What I love about FV: an innocent, honest question seeking information just has to be answered by someone determined not to answer the question but to be rude and/or snarky and/or sarcastic.
CAMWS is next week. There's no Placement Service there. In order to get a schedule in time, schools ought to be at or near finished reading those supposed 100+ applications. And those applications were due ca. March 15-16, not just a week ago. Last year we had a discussion on how many applications temporary jobs got, and the general impression was that 50-60 were the norm. Wisconsin clearly thought they could get through a bunch in just a few days, why not other schools?
So the Pomona TT search failed, and now they seem to have offered their VAP job before the application deadline has passed. Can we officially give them an award for Weirdest Search of the Year?
Hah. I once interviewed for a job that was intended for someone who works in my sub-field, and the only person on the committee who worked in that area WAS the grad student, while at least two search committee members, including the chair, were hardly qualified to judge me or the other candidates. I didn't get the job, though the person who did was certainly a perfectly good choice.
So, they advertised for a 1-year (deadline 12/31/2008) and a TT in Greek/Latin poetry (deadline 1/15/2009), and everyone who applied for the VAP was considered for the TT. Technically, at least I think so, the APA interviews were for the VAP, since the TT deadline was post-APA.
Were there phone interviews for the TT post-APA?
Campus visits happened. TT job was offered and accepted, as snail mail indicates. Et voilà , department profile will consist of two Hellenists (philosophy + histor[iograph]y) and one Romanist (history), with incoming Hellenist (diss on prose + reception, which may involve poetry).
But I don't recall mention of any info about the VAP in the rejection letter. So, what of the VAP? Is the current visitor (another Hellenist, I think) staying on?
I've had conference-to-campus interviews at two top R1 institutions (one state, one private) with a grad student on each committee. I was not at all bothered by their presence. In fact, the best/ most interesting question I've ever been asked at an interview was asked by the grad student member.
For the responsible grad student, it's also a tremendous advantage - she (yes, in both cases, the grad student was a woman) will know what to expect when being interviewed herself.
As a long-time lurker with lots of friends on the market (still) and recent time served on a SC, I do want to point out that people are forgetting that not everyone involved in the hiring process (as alluded to by 3/24 11:24) is a classicist. So, for example, our dean - who knows nothing about classics - tends to think of the quality of schools in terms of his/her own field or more generally. So, even if Harvard classics were terrible (which they aren't), this dean would still look very favorably on a hire from Harvard.
This kind of logic actually dominates more of the job market than I had realized, but I've since seen it come into play a lot. As a colleague explained to me, the influence of grad schools is largely regional, and only a few have strong enough reputations to give their students a shot at jobs around the country. To use Harvard again, that name carries weight throughout the country, but a school like Illinois has a much narrower influence. If you are at a mid-range college in Illinois, you - as a SC member - will understand the value of students from Illinois and be more inclined to hire them, whereas someone at a mid-range school in California may be less inclined to attribute to that Illinois degree the same worth.
Finally, a related phenomenon has to do with the age of people on a SC. At a lot of smaller schools or schools where there isn't as much emphasis on publications, the faculty are - on the whole - going to be less engaged with what's happening in the major programs in the field. So, while I can look at my graduate school and see how different it is now in comparison with what it was like when I started, for the bulk of faculty in the field older than me, they probably think of it as being roughly the same. Reputations aren't made - or lost - overnight, and so there's a lot of carry over. Rutgers, for instance, seems to be taking strides toward putting together a good PhD program (to judge from the number of Rutgers applicants I've seen), but since Rutgers isn't a traditional classics powerhouse, it's going to take a while for that reputation to permeate, and so Rutgers people on the market now may find they have a harder time getting a job than their successors in the program will a decade down the road. Seriously, though, until I started reading all sorts of files from Rutgers, I hadn't even realized that Rutgers HAD a Ph.D. program, and so it was that much harder to evaluate those students. And I could be totally off-base, here, but it wouldn't surprise me that most of the jobs that the Rutgers people are getting are on the East Coast, where Rutgers has an established reputation.
Okay, just some things that I figured should be said. As a word of encouragement to everyone, just keep working and remember that the cream eventually rises to the top (and the dregs eventually settle).
In other words, if you don't want a regional-bound (and possibly 2nd tier) career, don't go to grad school anywhere outside the top 10?
I don't mean that sarcastically, I really appreciate your post. I'm just asking. To be honest, while harsh and a little indiscriminate, that kind of makes sense.
As a word of encouragement to everyone, just keep working and remember that the cream eventually rises to the top (and the dregs eventually settle).
Anon. 10:20, I agree with everything else you said, but while the dregs may eventually not get tenure, the cream may have failed to find a job and been forced to leave the field.
In other words, if you don't want a regional-bound (and possibly 2nd tier) career, don't go to grad school anywhere outside the top 10?
Depends on what you mean by second-tier career. It's perfectly possible to teach at a less-than-stellar school and have a stellar research career. (I could name names, but FV bans that.)
In other words, if you don't want a regional-bound (and possibly 2nd tier) career, don't go to grad school anywhere outside the top 10?
Nobody is guaranteed the kind of job they want. The chances of getting the job you want, however, are affected by the regard in which your Ph.D. institution is held, generally or locally. The less "elite" the program you attend, the bigger the gamble you're taking.
This is information that anyone considering graduate school in any field should have at the forefront of their mind; it shouldn't be something they discover as they're headed out on the job market. I'm not sure whether this is a failure of disclosure on the part of departments, or people dead-set on going to graduate school aren't really concerned about 5-7 years down the road.
It's perfectly possible to teach at a less-than-stellar school and have a stellar research career.
Yes, it is. But the point is that, statistically speaking, such a person is a comparatively unlikely success; it's great for that person, but doesn't mean that one should think that's a prudent route to follow. That's the kind of thinking that sustains lotteries.
I think one factor is that SC look for familiarity; they look for research (and people associated with it) that they can relate to. No matter how wonderful a Princeford diss might be, if they do not understand its significance, or do not have a letter spelling out its significance, an app will likely be passed over. If there is a non-elite state school diss supervised by the known expert in some well-received topic, it will often get past the first stages.
I'm convinced more than ever that the first vetting process before teh APA is when we lose many good candidates; there just isn't enough time and information to do this process justice, not when there are hundreds of apps. Once you get to the campus visit, it's fairly obvious how the person might do with students and research.
The upshot? It's impossible to predict what topic might be particularly well-received over 5 years down the road. Like all grad students, you often need to choose between big-name school with not so great fit for you, or small-name school with a great fit. Sometimes you get lucky and get the big name with a perfect fit for you, but this isn't the norm by any means. The problem with classics is that any gamble you make might mean joblessness, unlike more thriving disciplines like economics or biology.
It's perfectly possible to teach at a less-than-stellar school and have a stellar research career.
Yes, it is. But the point is that, statistically speaking, such a person is a comparatively unlikely success; it's great for that person, but doesn't mean that one should think that's a prudent route to follow. That's the kind of thinking that sustains lotteries.
Ugh, I completely misread what you were saying. I read "study" for "teach" in your first sentence. Ignore that part of my comment.
Here's a change of topic, I guess. I've got two undergrads interested in studying Latin lit in grad school. What are some of the best places to recommend? NB I don't ask in order to disparage any place - please don't give negative recommendations - but has anyone has a really good experience lately with a program, or does anyone think really highly of a few particular programs? thanks.
Wow...cynicism and hostility, all rolled into one. I didn't realize I touched such a nerve. Maybe I should ask another forum for help. Anyway, yes, these students have plenty of Greek too, but they want to specialize in Latin poetry and/or prose if they can. It seems everywhere we look, Hellenists predominate. So I was hoping for some interesting suggestions and/or endorsements for exciting places to study Latin lit.
It's a sad thing, but naming departments and, worse, recommending one over another on this blog is bound to lead to a big food fight. I don't think this is the right forum for this kind of question. But then again I don't know if there is one for it either.
It seems everywhere we look, Hellenists predominate.
I'm not sure what this means. That they're more numerous than Latinists in any given department? That you've heard of the Hellenists but not the Latinists?
That said, I think that what should be emphasized is the overall intellectual experience of a program, which doesn't really become "Hellenist" or "Latinist" until the dissertation phase. It's important that there be enough, and exciting enough, people in your discipline to make up your dissertation committee, but beyond that I don't see how a numerical preponderance of Hellenists or Latinists in a department makes much difference to whether it's a good place to study one or the other.
Hmm ... tough to answer without naming names. And what I have to say isn't going to be so useful now (would've been in the late '90s). But I somehow feel compelled to share my positive experience, albeit obliquely.
I worked (not closely) with a respected Latinist at one place (in top 20), one of few that were the best teachers in the department, who's now at another place (not in the top 20, I think). Just about the nicest person one can study with. On one end of the experience, prof took all the first-years in our Latin lit survey to coffee individually at the beginning of the term, took genuine interest in us as students and people, regardless of whether our scholarly interests aligned. Still the case when we run into each other at APAs, and I wasn't even an advisee. On the other end, just about every fellow PhD alum a few years ahead of me and now TT/tenured at reputable schools worked with prof.
Maybe there's a way we can correspond in more detail outside FV?
I've got two undergrads interested in studying Latin lit in grad school. What are some of the best places to recommend?
Hmm, let's see. Everyone on this site is busy casting the evil eye at two universities for being splendacularly successful. As someone pointed out earlier, one of the two doesn't really do Latin. Et voila...Princeton.
I'm not entirely kidding. The only problem is, as someone else pointed out last year, if you're the sixth best candidate from P-town, kiss that dream job goodbye. (I believe there may be some apt fortune cookie wisdom about knowing yourself or something.)
I went to a peer institution, was very happy with it, and got a decent job, so while Princeton's Latin program may be the best on paper, I'm not sure it makes that much difference in the end. I guess the rule should be: go somewhere that 1) is famous, 2) will pay you, 3) lacks sociopaths, and 4) has at least two people in your field.
Sorry, forgot to put this in my previous post: and Penn, that'd be my other Latin choice besides Princeton. But as I said, not sure how much any of the fine differences really matter.
It sounds like you just need some schools to check out. Aside from the oft or already mentioned schools, there are University of Washington, UC Berkeley, USC, UCLA, Columbia, Brown, UNC, Michigan, OSU, Chicago (omissions do not imply criticism - just a pre-coffee note of where *some* excellent Latinists teach with broad geographical range).
Another idea: a terminal MA before scouting about for a PhD school. The extra two years can be very useful in clarifying many matters about graduate school.
I'd be wary of steering them anywhere based on their own current interests - undoubtedly (and hopefully?) those will change. I went to grad school expecting to be a Roman Historian. I left with a PhD in Greek Poetry. Go figure.
The best places are those that 1) have a collegial atmosphere, 2) pay well, 3) provide good opportunities for teaching, and 4) place their graduates, regardless of specialty.
Based on your list of criteria, I should have gone to Penn, judging by what's been said about the program this year and how they're placing all types of people all over the place. The funny thing is that in the late 90s, it didn't even make my shortlist (and the program I did eventually choose was waning in retrospect). It goes to show that it's difficult to tell which program is waxing or waning at any given point.
Yes, Penn does have a strong program across the board and the atmosphere was quite collegial when I was there (no idea now with all the new blood), but it paid shite. I heard it's better now, but it was a strong negative back in the day. One thing that Penn did and I applaud is hiring both junior and senior faculty (whether by choice or based on finances). My undergrad program on the Left Coast was almost entirely made up of full professors. I'm not sure why most big-time programs think it's ideal to have 90+% senior faculty.
This is all very informative, thanks. I've been reading all the comments and hope for even more.
The last poster really caught my attention with this remark, though:
"I'm not sure why most big-time programs think it's ideal to have 90+% senior faculty."
What is the disadvantage here? I would think you go to grad school for precisely these people, not the newbies or (possibly) stalled-out mid-career profs.
Junior faculty bring an energy that's often missing among senior faculty. Their research is almost always more up to date. They can also usually relate better with grad students.
There are stalled-out mid-career faculty, but there are many more seniors on cruise control from my experience who can somehow go on sabbatical every other year.
I'm not saying we should have 90% junior faculty, but an overall balance.
The other issue is what will happen 5-10 years down the road to a department a bit long in the tooth? Will every retiree get replaced, even at elite schools?
The thing to keep in mind is that programs don't build or lose their reputation overnight. Penn has probably been doing some good things for years now and it's only recently come to the forefront. On the flipside, there are probably some programs living on reputation more than substance. It all goes in cycles based on who has been *active* among the faculty, not just listed on the roster.
A lot depends on the pro-activeness of the student. You can usually find two decent faculty at any graduate institution, you just have to make sure you learn from and work with the best you have. In fact it may be better to choose your field based on quality rather than reputation (though you should *always* have one brand name superviser).
The thing I like about Stanford, Penn, and some other departments is that they have historians and archaeologists on their standing faculty. It's not the same when they are in history and art history departments with cross appointments. For all the grousing and pyrotechnics on here, I don't think anyone wins when we're separated.
Based on your list of criteria, I should have gone to Penn, judging by what's been said about the program this year and how they're placing all types of people all over the place.
We're getting way ahead of ourselves here. No department should be judged on a single year's placement numbers (let alone early, partial numbers!). If you go look at the numbers in the comments thread on the "Past Performance" post (which seems to have been bumped to "page two" of the blog), you'll see that in 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 Penn had very respectable but not eye-popping placement numbers. Furthermore, according to the wiki, Penn Ph.D.s have gotten four positions so far this year, which is in line with what they've gotten the previous two years (6 and 4) but is perhaps more striking because of the smaller number of total positions advertised (and not cancelled!) this year.
In order to get a handle on placement, we need to look at numbers over a range of years; looking at just one year's numbers is what brought us last year's brilliant "Princeford" concept that has served us so well.
It's not just placement. As a former postbac there, i know that the atmosphere is quite collegial (miss those coffee hours on Thursdays, Prof. RR!) and their students get loads of opportunties to teach, as mentioned earlier. They also have a very broad and holistic faculty. Alas, I did not get in and headed elsewhere. For whatever reason, Penn always seems to fly under the radar though and theire faculty has only gotten stronger the last five years.
Please let it continue to fly under the radar. I don't want talk of Pennford, Pornell, or whatever. Let Princeton and Stanford continue in the limelight.
FWIW, Penn is up to at least six positions this year (will leave it up to others to "out" them), which is quite remarkable in this market. Fluke? I'm sure at least in part, but it's not just random either. I think it reflects a renaissance of sorts that has been happening to the program across the board for the last decade.
Yeah, but good luck getting your students into the program now. We did quite well in the past placing our students into their classics, history, and clarch programs, but we haven't gotten a sniff in the past couple years. (We're a flagship state school with a top 30 program, if that matters)
Some of the most useful comments so far have been the 'flying under the radar' places. Go ahead, name names - anyone know of a few places that are diamonds in the rough (or likely to be in the near future)?
I don't understand why Penn hasn't garnered more attention; in addition to having a great faculty, they also have placed a number of excellent people at prominent places for the better part of the last decade.
It's a bit depressing but I can think of more in the "living on reputation" or "best days behind them" category than diamonds in the rough.
Maybe Cornell, Northwestern, Virginia, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Washington, Iowa, Buffalo, Arizona, Penn State, and Florida State? I don't think Arizona and Penn State have a Ph.D. program out of the group.
For some reason, I think Big Ten programs have suffered the most. Wisconsin had an incredible program a generation or so ago, but it has severely contracted along with the rest of the university after it's postwar meteoric rise. Illinois had a storied program in the first half of the last century, but it's treading water at best now with no end in sight. Indiana is pretty much the same story as Wisconsin.
In the end, I think it has much to do with how much the administration supports the department, especially at public schools.
Georgia and Vanderbilt have M.A. programs (Vandy the M.A.T. as well), but no Ph.D. program. Thank god for that. They are great places to get a Master's, but I hope they don't think they need to offer a Doctorate. I think we should have fewer Ph.D. programs and a few more M.A./M.A.T. programs, but I've said that before here and it has been swatted away by grayer heads. Frankly, there are a number of Ph.D. programs that take in students with no hope of real placement. It is unethical.
It's a bit depressing but I can think of more in the "living on reputation" or "best days behind them" category than diamonds in the rough.
Maybe Cornell, Northwestern, Virginia, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Washington, Iowa, Buffalo, Arizona, Penn State, and Florida State? I don't think Arizona and Penn State have a Ph.D. program out of the group.
Does this mean that you think the schools above are good places to go, or burned out husks to be avoided? Sorry if I'm dense but I'm not sure I understand which you meant here.
I think the burned out schools are the Big Ten list. The first list are potential candidates for diamonds in the rough.
Though not as prominent as the Big Ten schools, I think classics has also suffered at lower-tier R1 universities and non-elite SLACs. It actually surprises me that some top-50 research schools don't have independent classics departments. UC Davis, UC San Diego, and Michigan State are three that come to mind immediately.
1,771 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1401 – 1600 of 1771 Newer› Newest»Having received some post-fly-out rejections via email, I find myself resentful at the fact that I was asked to come out by phone and then informed of the rejection by email.
Don't get me wrong. I understand why email is a preferable venue for rejecting. But I still can't help thinking that a campus visit merits a phone notification.
In the immortal words of Peter Frampton, do you feel like I do?
I feel your pain (it's happened to me). But the worst post-flyout rejection I ever got was a rejection letter recited on my office voicemail AT ONE IN THE MORNING on a WEEKEND, when there was no chance I would answer the phone.
Was the email at least somewhat personal? To me, my strangest rejection after a campus visit was a letter sent via snail mail. It was a generic three sentence letter that basically said:
Dear Dr. Reject,
We have decided to go in a different direction for our position in basket weaving. Thank your for your time. We wish you luck in the future.
Sincerely, Dr. Doom
I've often felt like writing back to these places:
Dear Rude-Person-Who-Will-Now-Pretend-I-Don't-Exist,
Thank you for your form (because you were too big a coward to tell me by phone) rejection. I was offered another job anyway so I don't really care.
Toodles,
Happily-Rejected-by-You
Next, they'll just text.
Seriously, I'm just waiting to hear that someone received a text message that says, "SOZ." It's only a matter of time.
I can see the logic of contacting candidates by email - personally I'd prefer to read it by email rather than have to have a really awkward phone conversation.
That doesn't excuse an impersonal email though. And it certainly doesn't excuse schools leaving it for ages before bothering to contact the rejected candidates.
I don't see what the fuss is about. Correct me if I'm wrong but good news have always traveled by phone and bad news by mail. It's true that email occupies a middle ground between phone and mail but in my experience it's more likely to carry news that would otherwise be in a letter, not a phone call.
Correct me if I'm wrong but good news have always traveled by phone and bad news by mail.
What was it like for Classics job hunters in the 18C and 19C, I wonder?
"That doesn't excuse an impersonal email though. And it certainly doesn't excuse schools leaving it for ages before bothering to contact the rejected candidates."
I have to disagree here. I much prefer the rejections I've gotten that are impersonal: they make it quick and unemotional, and they also close the door so I don't embarrass myself by writing back (as I once did), well, if you change your mind, let me know, we'll talk it over, etc. Impersonal and unemotional is best for all concerned.
What was it like for Classics job hunters in the 18C and 19C, I wonder?
People hunted animals back then, not jobs.
I tell you what I don't want in a rejection - mention (occasionally even praise!) of the successful candidate. Why on earth would a Chair think that should go into a letter? I get it. She's hot and I'm not. STFU.
Yes, this is soooooo tacky! I've received a couple of those and I always wondered how people could be so socially inept to think that it is OK to write that to a rejected candidate. In some way, though, they made me feel better... knowing that at least I wouldn't have to work with the buffoon who wrote the letter.
At least we can post the name on the wiki, though, when someone sends a letter like that.
So, about those March job ads... WHERE ARE THEY???
Re: March ads
Anyone in the Philly area should stage a march on the APA HQ to get the ads out. I understand that the 15th was a weekend, but it's the 17th now, and this lateness is not an isolated incident.
(Watch. Maybe now we're whining they'll show up.)
Sorry, suckers... I'm hanging out at The Dark Horse today, playing some darts and knocking back the Bushmills.
No jobs for you!
Leave it to RP to drink Protestant whiskey on St. Pats...
Just added March jobs to the wiki. They could be better, but there are a few more in there?
And what's going on with Pomona, does anyone know? Their t-t failed; then someone said they'd invited him/her to campus for a 2-year; now they're advertising the 2-year position?
That comment at 2:53pm should be deleted. No names, people.
I'm actually disappointed with the March ads. There are two in Virginia we didn't know about already, and that's it. Everything else was announced here or in the March 1 ads. Unless, of course, you're a senior Latinist or want to teach in Germany.
Oh, well, two more chances for gainful employment next academic year...
I disagree about naming the successful candidate in the rejection letter (praise is a separate issue). In the days before FV, it gave me an opportunity to figure out why someone was chosen over me for a job I cared about -- not in an over-analytical crazy stalker way, but in the "I see why they would have chosen someone who offered x" way. At the very least, isn't it the kind of transparency we want and that the wiki is attempting to offer?
Agreed w/ 7:24PM. When I received a rejection letter from a certain New England SLAC last year, I was interested to know who was the lucky candidate they hired over me, (and I immediately understood why they had). What I did not understand was why the author of the letter had told me it was wonderful to meet me in New Orleans(!!). How long ago was THAT APA/AIA? (A: 2003)
Honestly? I had to laugh at the fact that an old rejection letter had been used: cut & paste new hire's name & institution. Imagine if such sloppiness had marred my cover letter - I wouldn't even have gotten an interview in the first place! But that's just one of the differences other than the sides of the table.
Meanwhile, when I was offered a job one of my first impulses was to call the other institutions where my candidacy was still under consideration. It had never, ever crossed my mind to email the remaining schools with the request to withdraw my application.
I suppose it would be "funny", perhaps even charming if I had snail-mailed them all letters saying I had accepted an offer at another institution, but "it was delightful meeting with [them] in Dallas," (APA/AIA'99)...
Ha - this thread has become all schadenfreude, and it's fun to dream about revenge against SCs. But do remember that when you take a job, you're beginning a *career* in this field, and you can and will run into all these people over and over and over...so keep the revenge scenarios to yourself!
I am more than happy to run into these people and say hello but many search committee members, due to some misplaced sense of propriety or social dysfunction, seem to think that once you don't offer someone a job, they can go back to ignoring that you ever existed because, after all, you weren't good enough for them. Why not dream about reversing it and even talk about it (without naming names, of course...)?
Re: Interjecting v. Introjecting "revenge"(?)
Woah- Who said anything about seeking vengeance? One does not have to sacrifice his sense of humor on the altar of his *career.* Perhaps the missing ingredient in this whole process is precisely that - a sense of humor and the ability to laugh on occasion...rather than forever stifle our tears behind a facade of gravitas (or anonymous posts on FV, as the case may be).
It should be obvious that the last sentence of my post was a joke and not in any way a recommendation or a call to arms! After all, I did call the heads of the SCs to inform them of my news. (Be the change you wish to see?) Likewise, when I wrote "I had to laugh," I actually did laugh - in a tender way, not a maniacal one. If anything, the error in the rejection letter reminded me of the humanity (yes!) of the members of the SC; that is, it suggested to me that my own, personal anxieties were making the whole process seem less humane than it actually was.
This site serves many purposes, among them the opportunity to complain to like-minded individuals and seek some solace in the company of others' frustration. For my part, may I suggest that ironic discourse not be confused with action. Nor humor be confused with vendetta.
Most important, though, is memory - that we constructively remember what it's like to be a candidate when we, over the course of our illustrious *careers*, are all on SCs; that we remember our prior neuroses and anxieties; and that we try to make the process as painless, transparent, pleasant, and self-aware as possible for all involved. (i.e. Be the change we wish to see!)
I had a nice campus visit in February of 2008. Everyone was very pleasant and kind to me, but I did not get the job, and I completely understood why they went with the person who did get the job. At this year's APA, I wound up alone in the elevator with someone from that school. Back at his campus, just ten months earlier, I had spent two hours in his office discussing their program with him. He had been to my job talk as well as my initial interview. I had on my name tag in the elevator, and I smiled and said hello to him and asked how he and his department were doing. He looked at me, gave a weak smile, and then started reading his program with great intensity, with no reply whatsoever. I could not figure out whether he truly did not remember who I was (he wasn't particularly old) or whether he just didn't want to speak to me for whatever reason. It seemed way too awkward to blurt out, "I'm XXX, I visited your campus in February, REMEMBER, congratulations on hiring So-and-so!" or some variation on that, so I just let it drop. I know that faculty meet a lot of people during job searches, but this was a little over the top.
Some SC members I have found quite polite and interested in staying in touch after a callback at which I didn't get the job. But the majority do ignore me when our paths cross, or give me a puzzled look of "who are you?" The worst was when one came up to a friend of mine and me in Philadelphia and spent time chatting with her while totally ignoring me after that puzzled "how do I know you?" look.
This last APA I tried to outblank and outdisdain the SC members who didn't hire me. I had a job so I didn't really care. You know what? Wasn't nearly as satisfying as I thought it would be. But I'm a stubborn, vengeful bastard. So I'm going to keep it up. It's actually less energy-consuming than the fake smile.
It's actually less energy-consuming than the fake smile.
You could try wearing a tie with an emoticon on it.
"Graduate School in the Humanities: Just Don't Go"
http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2009/01/2009013001c.htm
http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2009/03/2009031301c.htm
Discuss.
RE: Graduate School in Classics
When a person desires to convert to Judaism, the rabbi turns them away three times. I've always followed this rule in dealing with students who are considering graduate school in classics.
- poldy
You are a poldy poseur. You did not say "tinkerty tonk."
He didn't say it because mean people told him it was annoying. They have broken him.
http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2009/03/2009031301c.htm
Discuss.
At least recently, the job market in Classics has been less harsh than that in the broader humanities, and accordingly pursuing a Ph.D. in Classics was a less disastrous decision than pursuing one in other fields of the humanities.
On the other hand, as has been said a million times here, there are in fact too many people taking Ph.D.s in Classics.
Should we have another round of arguing about whose fault that is? Or should we just scroll up?
I want tinkerty-tonk back!
re: BRYN MAWR one-year
The wiki lists that the position was offered.
Did your rejection letter really say that? I was under the impression that they were doing on-campus interviews this week, with a decision to be made next. They had one person on campus a few weeks ago. Also, I've not received any such letter.
@ anon 9:17
I got the letter today. It says the position is filled.
FAMA
NYU's MC search FAILED. 0 for 2.
WTF? Is this b/c of funding? This is a *buyer's market* if ever there was one ...
This latest mention of a failed search (NYU's job for a Roman archaeologist shared btwn Classics and Art History) is quite disturbing. While we all understand that uncertain economic times have forced some institutions to cancel or postpone searches, one fails to understand what seems to be a fairly high instance here of programs failing searches for reasons other than financing. We can sympathize with the SCs that it is hard to find the right fit, etc. but come on, people! This phenomenon seems like myopia and bad screening and general cluelessness!
Isn't this the Aphrodisias position that's failed at least once before? I'm guessing that one source of difficulty is that they want a relatively high profile person to fill this particular position, but members of this exceedingly small pool would likely choose better situations like at Berkeley or Michigan.
No, this NYU post was in Classics & Art History, and those units have nothing whatever to do with Aphrodisias ...
Sounds like NYU being its normal self. There have been stories of them doing this kind of thing regularly in the past, and then twice this year...
Could be because it's a joint position in two departments. That often creates a situation with competing ideas about what sort of person the hire should be and results in a hung jury.
I wonder if it isn't fairly normal for this many searches to fail. (Not at NYU, but in general.) Maybe it's just more obvious now with FV and the wiki.
NYU: proof that money ain't everything.
Info about the tragic fates of the Stanford grad students on their department's website.
Totally tragic!
The actual link.
So, for those of you keeping score at home this year, here's how the teams are doing in this year's market race:
Stanford: 4
Penn: 3 + 1 (who has not yet revealed him/herself on the wiki), so 4
Cal-Berkeley: 2 (one a contract renewal, looks like)
UT-Austin: 2
Bryn Mawr: 1
Cambridge: 1 (from earlier deletion of Duke acceptance)
Chicago: 1
Cincinnati: 1
Harvard: 1
Michigan: 1
Open University: 1
Oxford: 1
Rutgers: 1
UBC: 1
UToronto: 1
Princeton: ? (I've heard some noises about 1-2 jobs going there, but nothing definite)
We need a new name for next year...how 'bout Pennford?
Make that Chicago: 2.
And OSU: 1.
Make it Michigan 3
Correction: Michigan 4
Bryn Mawr College = 2
UNC = 1
Soooo, dude from Stanford got the Harvard gig and he's not even finished; and girl from Stanford got the Oklahoma gig, which advertised for lyric poetry, with a diss. on Homer and Aristotle...
Am I applying for jobs in Bizarro World or something?
So, Michigan 4, UNC 1, Bryn Mawr 2...update the wiki already. It doesn't reflect those numbers.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to include tenured professors who happen to be moving from one job to another. So it should be UT Austin: 1.
Probably impossible/ fairly difficult to figure out (unless the APA wants to deal with it), but wouldn't it be interesting to have some ratios. How many PhDs from Uni. X were on the market? And how many of them found employment? I find placement percentages more interesting than raw numbers.
If 4 students from Uni A got jobs, but there were 15 students from Uni A on the market, I am less impressed by Uni A than by Uni B, which had 2 students on the market and both of them got jobs.
Famae -
.Harvard 2
.Rutgers 2
(all TT)
I'd be interested in knowing what type of candidate gets hired straight out of grad school v. after series of VAPs / adjuncting / post-docs (research v teaching?). And what's the shelf-life of candidates who bounce around after depositing. "Individual results may vary." It should all be published by the APA/AIA in the off-season.
Pretty classy of Oberlin to offer both of their positions before even sending out receipt notifications.
Don't be so quick to bash Oberlin - non T-T gigs follow a different set of 'rules' than the T-T searches. It is not uncommon for VAPs and the like to be offered quickly.
Don't be so quick to bash Oberlin - non T-T gigs follow a different set of 'rules' than the T-T searches. It is not uncommon for VAPs and the like to be offered quickly.
True, but Oberlin's deadline was over a month ago, and there was no mention on the wiki even of phone interviews. The postdoc went to a former VAP, I hear; perhaps the other candidate was a similar insider.
Agreed with 10:31pm.
Lack of communication re: VAPs doesn't really annoy me.
As for TT-jobs, well, that's a different story.
For example, say that a TT-job was accepted at least three weeks ago. Ongoing failure to notify re: its status riles me up. (Note: Website announcements, in my book, don't count.)
Here's looking at you, a certain public institution in the state of Texas.
I think Penn is at 6, so yes, they are rockin' this year.
True, but Oberlin's deadline was over a month ago, and there was no mention on the wiki even of phone interviews. The postdoc went to a former VAP, I hear; perhaps the other candidate was a similar insider.
The VAP process is just different - the formalities of the TT market are not in play. Often simply a candidate is chosen from the pool, they're brought out, and offered the job; if they come out and it's not a fit, then the dept. goes back to the pool. Don't immediately resort to conspiracy theory just b/c no one sent you an email saying 'we received your application'. While this field is a mess, not everything is duplicitous.
Texas is having their troubles locking up people. They've definitely lost two of their Hellenist candidates to other jobs, according to the wiki.
Anon 9:13, you make it sounds like a prison sentence!
Texas is a pretty huge institution and the paperwork can take an inordinately long time (unlike a SLAC where they can wrap it all up in under a week). Besides, someone already reported here that the Latinist position was likely to be accepted, no? Have no idea about the Greek, though the Wiki does suggest they're going to be looking down the list.
Famae -
.Rutgers 2
(all TT)
I'd be interested in knowing what type of candidate gets hired straight out of grad school v. after series of VAPs / adjuncting / post-docs (research v teaching?). And what's the shelf-life of candidates who bounce around after depositing. "Individual results may vary."
I know both these individuals. One is a VAP. The other served in Adjunct Hell for a year. So neither are immediately out of grad school.
It's hard to say why one candidate gets a TT job straight out while others have to go through hoops (adjuncting, VAP-ing) before landing a job with real security. In many cases, it seems to come down to specifically what they work on, and the needs of departments.
Many people seem to think that 5-7 years is likely the maximum, and that's almost an absolute maximum, shelf life, but this can depend on many factors. If you have been constantly employed since doing the walk and getting the big hood, either in adjuncting, or better, in VAP jobs, you can remain viable. Publishing during that time will definitely help.
Sadly, there will always be departments which will want nothing to do with those who have been on the market for a few years, and will prefer to take some shiny new PhD from one of the "elite" programs. But those places tend to be the other "elite" programs. The vast majority of jobs will be at more modest institutions, and at those places good sense can often prevail over snobbery.
When you need someone who can teach 3 courses immediately in the Fall to students whose level of college preparation is far short of the Ivies, then you may be more interested in someone who has a few years of teaching in the trenches than some shiny new elite ABD (who'll only defend that very Spring) who has never stood in front of a class in his/her life as the instructor of record with no safety net.
Soooo, dude from Stanford got the Harvard gig and he's not even finished; and girl from Stanford got the Oklahoma gig, which advertised for lyric poetry, with a diss. on Homer and Aristotle...
Am I applying for jobs in Bizarro World or something?
SCs can be strange beasts. They come across something, or someone, they like more, and choose accordingly. Don't look for rationality in the process.
---------
On another topic, this is far firmer than fama, but the Rutgers job has been accepted. If the person who has it does not wish to be named at this time, that is his/her choice.
Re: 12:47AM, I think the poster did not mean UT-Austin, but UT-San Antonio.
Re: 12:47AM, I think the poster did not mean UT-Austin, but UT-San Antonio.
My bad. Yeah, that was weeks ago. Didn't apply there but boy should they have let you know. But hey, one year I got a rejection in like May for a job that was accepted, not merely offered, in Feb. Hell, I know people who never formally got rejected. Hold on, maybe there are some positions out there from 2003 for which I'm still a candidate? Just letting you all know I'm still available. Bit moldy but very much available.
moldy poldy?
I think it is really reprehensible that you assume that Stanford PhDs got hired without any rationality on the part of the search committees. Perhaps they were good candidates. For some reason, that seems not to be an option for many of you. The fact is, Stanford had a respectable but not outstanding program for many years, then they built up a really good program, and now their students, who always got decent placements anyway, are doing really well on the market. Isn't that what we want? Change and improvement rather than departments frozen in hierarchies and tiers for all time? And the people who got the jobs are hard workers and nice people. I'm not saying that other candidates on the market aren't equally nice and hard-working - I just find it weird that whatever school is doing well in a given year suddenly becomes part of a vast conspiracy where SCs are booting out stellar candidates from Program X because they are star-struck with Program Y. The second that Program Z catches up and passes Program Y, then all the Program Y affiliates jump on the bandwagon with Program X to accuse Program Z candidates of being inferior but shiny, and suddenly Program Z is the underhanded, fishy program of the year. And so on, and so on. Will it end, I guess, when all of you get jobs - which each one of you will, no doubt, richly deserve, without any hint of conspiracy. No - of course it won't end, because then you'll be the ones maligned on this site, and amidst your good fortune in landing a good job, you will know how it feels to have your candidacy, value, and hard-work publicly attacked simply because you got a job and someone else didn't.
Exactly. And I don't even like Stanford.
Why do people think that UT is going down their list for Hellenists? As reported earlier, one of the three Hellenists chose not to come for the campus visit; that leaves two who were in the running. UT offered the job to one of them. Presumably it was the one who wasn't offered the job who took the TT elsewhere as listed on the wiki, rather than wait on the off chance that the first one refused. At least that's what I would figure unless I see something about the UT offer being declined on the wiki, or the third Hellenist also accepting a job elsewhere. Is my logic flawed?
Forgive me if this seems to divert the stream of the current debate, but I think it is relevant in a way that may get us beyond two-dimensional caricatures of Princeford villains. I've been meaning for a while now to post a data-mining experiment I did with the tenure-track jobs for material culture people. Months back, there was a not particularly useful debate about whether philologists or archaeologists get more than their share of jobs in the field. What I'd like to add is some data on how long MC people have to wait to get permanent jobs. I've used the data from the 2007/2008 market, the only reasonably complete set we have thus far. Taking the 19 tenure-track jobs from that year listed as MC positions or landed by a candidate listed as a MC specialist, I calculated the average number of years beyond the PhD, assigning 0 for a new PhD, 1 for a 2007 PhD, etc. The average (both mean and median) was 5.5 years. I have not calculated the average time for the control group, but I think that even the most die-hard philologist would admit that five and a half years is much longer than the average time for philologists. Also noteworthy is a correspondence between the few who did land TT jobs quickly and the "Princeford" schools; of the five who landed TT jobs less than two years out of grad. school, four were from Stanford (x2), Berkeley, and Harvard. Comments?
In the spirit of March Madness, one of the analogies we can use to describe the plight of MCers is that they're not guaranteed an "automatic bid" when they graduate. Almost all the clarch positions explicitly designated as such are meant for senior, or at the minimum advanced junior, scholars. This is plainly obvious looking at all the senior MC positions offered this year. So MCers fresh out of grad school have to claw and scratch for an "at-large" bid. They have to rely on secondary skills to get themselves generalist jobs, which often takes year of VAPing to develop. Once they get positions and tenure, their positions are often designated as archaeology ones, but once they move on or retire, an archaelogist rarely refills the position.
Before people raise a fuss, I'm not saying that individual philologists get jobs automatically, but that there are a relatively large number of positions where one with their skill sets is guaranteed to fill it. So Princeford MCers fight to land any gig while a bunch of philologists from 2nd tier schools are just as competitive on the market if not more so - supply and demand.
FWIW, this is a common plight for archaeologists whether they seek out a home in anthro, art history, history, etc. Where this puts young MCers, I do not know. I'm just glad I gave up archaeology to focus on history.
Can't you all just hear the violins playing in the background for the poor MC people?
I'd add that some philologists can and do take longer than 5.5 years, and it is often the folks from non-top schools that find themselves in that mess. Same with historians (who aren't covered in your study). I frankly don't care much about the overall average of years each sub-discipline takes; I just want a job, as do we all.
So why are we encouraging students to pursue archaeology if even the Princeford ones cannot get jobs? I think this is pretty irresponsible. Either support it well, which is obviously not happening judging by the availability of jobs, or drop it as a primary speciality.
Seriously, we should just line them up and shoot them. Why divert precious resources that could go to a couple more real classicists. Maybe instead of wasting time in the dirt a couple more invaluable translations of Homer can be produced as a result.
Yikes, is it a bad sign that I'm not sure whether the last post was being facetious or not?
Er? So MCers are now the whipping boys for why some ABD philologist from Southwest Idaho State University can't land a job?
This just gets better and better.
OK, I am really, really sick of the implied, "My sub-discipline (whatever it may be, MC, philology, history) suffers more than yours does!" on this latest thread.
Look. There are highly qualified people out there - not all from southwestern Idaho State - who aren't getting jobs. Maybe it's because they're obviously sabre-tooths in the making. Maybe it's because they're lazy and obviously won't make tenure. Maybe it's because they work on something really stupid and useless. But there are quite a few who publish, who teach well, who interview well, and never get the break. I have a t-t, but I count a few of those still searching (in each sub-discipline) among my friends and acquaintances. And it won't help the MC one, psychologically, to know that she's taking the usual amount of time in her sub-discipline to find a job, nor will it help the philologist one to know he's taking longer.
BTW, is there anyone who knows, in general terms, how our 15-interview-sabretooth-in-the-making made out? TT job? Postdoc?
BTW, is there anyone who knows, in general terms, how our 15-interview-sabretooth-in-the-making made out? TT job? Postdoc?
Well, since s/he's a fictional construct, I imagine he got 10 job offers and played them off against one another till someone gave him tenure and 100K/year, plus a 1-1 load and a full sabbatical every other year.
Is it possible that I have even less hope for classics after reading the last several posts? Soon we might all share the same fate as our sabretooths (minus the bully pulpit and plum chaired positions).
Weren't we sure that our sabretooth-in-training had an interview with one of the early schools? Temple? Rutgers? One of the SC chairs said as much and then the SIN went in hiding for a while before re-emerging briefly (if is really was the same person the second time).
http://chronicle.com/jobs/blogs/onhiring/967/why-is-it-so-hard-to-do-it-right
The fact is, Stanford had a respectable but not outstanding program for many years, then they built up a really good program, and now their students, who always got decent placements anyway, are doing really well on the market. Isn't that what we want? Change and improvement rather than departments frozen in hierarchies and tiers for all time?
This is correct. However, it's not as though Stanford's strategy of using dump trucks full of money to entice famous senior Classicists to come work there is one that's generally available to programs trying to improve their standing.
Then go to Stanford or a program that can do that. Don't blame them for trying. If you want some sort of state-run university system where each school gets the exact same amount of money and then attracts faculty based on who knows what basis, then find a country that offers it and move there. But if your complaint is that you chose to go to one school, and you're pissed that the school you chose doesn't have enough money to pay really good senior scholars what they're worth, well, then that's either your bad decision or your failure to get accepted at a program that had more money behind it. We can talk about inequity at an earlier time, when perhaps you weren't privileged enough to get on an educational path leading straight to Stanford, but the fact is, there are graduate students at Stanford, past and present, who came from some really humble beginnings, worked hard, got scholarships, did well in undergrad, and got accepted to Stanford, and chose it - well before their latest 'fancy' addition. Are you really blaming them for choosing a place that ended up helping them get jobs? Seriously? In fact, I am good friends with a Stanford grad who came from very humble beginnings, got to go to a decent undergrad on a scholarship, and work his/her little behind off, and got into some top programs. This was awhile back, when there were only a couple of big names there. That person liked where the program was going, and turned down some bigger-name programs because they thought the Stanford folks were a better match. After that person's arrival, some prominent senior scholars started showing up, because Stanford, which has always spent a lot of money on the sciences to the detriment of the humanities, decided to make a real commitment to bring up the fuzzie side to techie levels. So my friend made a good choice at a good time. So Stanford paid some senior scholars they money they deserve for working hard. So you chose a school that doesn't have enough money to do that. Now Stanford is evil because of all that? And my friend, who ended up with a decent job, is somehow unfairly privileged? Come on.
Rant much?
Anon. 9:17 - I agree that Stanford deserves its success, but has it occurred to you that people don't always have a choice of grad schools, because they're late bloomers academically, because they came to Latin/Greek late, because of personal issues? And then they may stay for any number of other reasons? Maybe this means they end up at some place that's not Stanford inter alia.
In my case, I was helping to nurse a terminally-ill parent. So, yeah, I turned down some "better" schools for a school close by. Now I have a PhD from there, and I should be looked down on by folks like you for not going to Stanford?
"I think it is really reprehensible that you assume that Stanford PhDs got hired without any rationality on the part of the search committees. Perhaps they were good candidates."
This deserves a serious reply. The people who got these jobs no doubt deserve them. The one thing that never, ever dawns on many posters in this space is that there may actually be something about themselves that is keeping them from getting a job. I know a candidate who several years ago sent out 100 applications and didn't even get a single on campus interview. S/he blamed the whole universe for this lack of success, but never stopped to wonder if there might not be something personal that was getting in the way of advancing beyond the first round of interviews. I don't at all mean to suggest that everyone who is having a hard time finding a job falls into this category. But it's worth considering...
Thanks oh so much for the warm and fuzzy feel-good anecdote Anon. 9:17. I think you should mention something about "bootstraps" next time.
To 10:28: I don't know how to reply to your reply. I tell you that Stanford was an underdog in Classics as recently as ten years ago, and you tell me that somehow Stanford is looking down on you because now they have expanded their program and their students are doing well on the market? Of course if your ideas are good, and you are rejected from a job search solely because your good ideas aren't attached to a fancy pedigree, then you have a right to be upset. My complaint was merely that few people on this board seemed willing to go out on a limb and surmise that -gasp! - maybe the Stanford folks got their job offers because the committee liked their ideas the most and thought they were the best fit for the department. But you persist in thinking that somehow they don't deserve the jobs they got - because, of course, YOU deserve their jobs, clearly. And I still don't know how to reply to you. So you turned down other programs to stay at home to help out with an ill parents. Of course there were going to be consequences. I chose a less prestigious job because I thought it made more sense given my particular family situation. I am well aware that my choice will affect my ability to move to other schools in the future. Is the problem that you think you should be given some sort of affirmative action advantage because you didn't go to Stanford or Princeton? If that's what you're driving at, then say so. How would you make the job process 'fair' in your view? Blind first sortings of applications? Affirmative action job placements? Contests between candidates? Having the dean pick the candidate rather than departmental members who might be inclined to hire the student of a friend? What exactly is it, 10:28, that is unfair and that you would change, and how?
As for 10:43 - my warm and fuzzy anecdote is no less instructive for your mocking it. Would you prefer that jobs go to pseudo-aristocratic youth, rather than people who worked hard, regardless of childhood socio-economic status?
In a blatant attempt to change the subject a bit, can someone explain Penn's success this year? Is it just a random year? I know that Penn has a great program, but I'm wondering if there's anything a program does to gear itself for success. Are they poring in money like Stanford? Are they improving their placement efforts among the faculty and staff?
I came from a middle class background and went to excellent state schools. Neither bootstraps nor silver spoons for me. And, professionally, an admixture of success and setback. John Hughes might say that I'm living the American Dream.
Fact #1: Stanford has put together a really good program in the last ten years.
Fact #2: Many Stanford grads have done some interesting and valuable work during that time.
Observation #1: Trolls frequently take control of this board.
Observation #2: While usually expressing an extreme position, a good troll masks her/his view in the rhetoric of normalcy.
Observation #3: Trolls come from a wide variety of academic (i.e. Stanford to OSNYUNC-Austinadison) and socioeconomic (i.e. John Bender to Ricky Stratton) backgrounds.
Moral: Don't feed the fucking trolls.
In other news, do people expect that there might be a "flood" (relatively speaking) of VAP/adjunct positions in April or May?
I think 10:28 quite specifically agreed with you that Stanford deserved its success, Anon. 9:17...their point was then that, as in pretty much everything in life, we don't always get a choice to go to the good schools, or the schools that will become good while we're there. Nor did I hear 10:28 complain that s/he was losing jobs to the undeserving, only that s/he felt looked down upon, which frankly the tone of your original post also suggested to me. So cool it, and quit jumping down 10:28's throat.
Here is the rub: there are plenty of SC members out there who do in fact look down at candidates with degrees from non-Princefordian places simply b/c their degrees are from non-Princefordian places. It happens: I have seen it not a few times.
Ironically (or predictably) these SC members have not been the best and the brightest. Yet they are able to shape departments based on the name of the school on the degree. That, methinks, is something to contest and refuse actively.
Whether these particular candidates hired are in fact the best fit should not be assumed simply b/c they have a Princfordian degree, as some here have done. That is just silly.
In other news, do people expect that there might be a "flood" (relatively speaking) of VAP/adjunct positions in April or May?
I've heard this theory. I doubt it. I don't think the temp market is that far behind last year's at this point, but that's just an impression. There are always schools announcing late, though, plus CAMWS to go through.
Whoa, 9:17 needs to switch to decaf. My point that Stanford had gone shopping wasn't a criticism of Stanford. Of course they should try to attract faculty with their resources if they have them. I was just saying that they're not a great example of how just any middling program can enhance itself in short order; they're an example of how a middling program at a vastly wealthy university can enhance itself in short order, and there aren't many vastly wealthy universities.
How that spurred 9:17's bizarre, fevered rant is beyond me.
Here is the rub: there are plenty of SC members out there who do in fact look down at candidates with degrees from non-Princefordian places simply b/c their degrees are from non-Princefordian places. It happens: I have seen it not a few times.
It does happen. I know definitely of one search last year where one candidate was head and shoulders above another, in terms of pubs, experience, research specialty, teaching, potential, yada yada...but the SC kept pulling back from going over to her/him as the choice because they kept worrying about the quality of his/her education (a Top 10-12 program, second-tier to folks like 9:17). Get real. That's not so relevant when pubs, teaching, and success in the field have all demonstrated this person is the real deal. Instead, the job went to...you guessed it, a newbie from a school that starts with a letter near Q.
9:17 did not get his/her degree from a top-tier school - probably ranked more about 20-25. 9:17 is not a troll simply because you make jokes about decaf and ranting. 9:17 has been on search committees and always has hired based on CVs and ideas, so saying that s/he looks down on non-Princeton and Stanford CVs is just wrong. 9:17 certainly does not look down on his/herself and has hired non-elite degree holders. And you still did not answer 9:17's question - since you think something about the system is deeply unfair, could you please a) outline exactly what is unfair, in your opinion, and b) what solution you would propose.
Here's a question, since folks keep bringing up the term: what are the 'top tier' schools in 2009? Anyone want to venture a ranking of the top 15 or so?
I also would like to know exactly what is unfair and how to fix it. I am trying to figure out from some of the above posts what the exact complaint is. There seems to be a general consensus that everyone should do his or her time in the VAP/postdoc trenches before getting hired. I'm not sure that this is the case. Search committees do have the right, in my opinion, to think that someone fresh out of school without pubs actually has a lot of promise, and it would be good to hire them. They know it's a gamble - sometimes they get burned, sometimes it works out. It's the same for people with pubs. Sometimes it is proof that they can get the job done, sometimes they use up all their good ideas on an article or two and never come up with anything else. The SCs are hiring, in part, on the basis of whether they think the candidate's research program for the next 5-20 years has promise. There were two near ad hominem attacks on Stanford ABDs over this issue. So Question 1: Is it 'unfair' or 'wrong' to hire an ABD over someone who has graduated and has an article or two? Should schools be required to have some sort of metric for hiring that prevents them from doing this?
Question 2: There seems to be a lot of agreement that you should hire on the basis of what is on the CV and in the research statement only, and a general belief that SCs are not doing that - they are hiring brand names, so to speak. In other words, what all these SCs are doing is reading crappy cover letters, looking at blank CVs, and hiring solely because they believe that the person got a Princeford education. Is that kind of on the mark? I don't think that is what you're saying, so maybe you could clarify what exactly Question 2 is: something along the lines of, SCs are giving too much weight to where a degree came from, when in fact candidates are equal in all other respects?
Third question - there seems to be some implication that while it is perfectly reasonable for Stanford to have 'gone shopping', this gives them an unfair advantages, because other schools can't buy top scholars. So what would be the solution here - some sort of draft, where scholars are randomly matched with schools and all paid salaries regulated by the APA/AIA?
Actually, more regulation seems to be kind of what's behind the complaints. I am guessing you all are not free marketers. So maybe things should be regulated by the APA/AIA, with some sort of matching program like medical residencies?
I want to chime in re: pubs. Sometimes it does seem "unfair" that someone who has 2-3 pubs doesn't get hired over an ABD with none. However, I have seen search committees hire because someone had decent pubs, and then never get anything else out of that person, because they'd used up all their moxy, so to speak. Also sometimes the pubs hurt them, because they were lackluster, when in fact the ABD is an unproven quantity, who might sparkle or might not.
No, I don't want to rank the schools. Things will get nastier than they already are.
9:17, I don't know how you can deny that certain "pedigrees" translate into more opportunities. You can't spell "classics" without "class"! On the other hand, I think that many people without pedigreed degrees do well for themselves and many people with them struggle just like the rest of us to get a toe in the door. But there is an undeniable advantage to having a degree from certain programs and not others. The real rub comes from the fact that the "it-program" changes from year to year.
Should Stanford's wealth be held against the classics dept. and its "products"? I don't think so. Other classics dept. also have the good fortune of a) belonging to wealthy institutions and b) having the support of the administration to go on hiring sprees in order to develop into big-time players. How many actually manage to pull it off? And how many others are in wealthy universities yet wallow in mediocrity? My point is, money isn't everything. Kudos to Stanford for translating money into academic success. But that can change.
Also sometimes the pubs hurt them, because they were lackluster, when in fact the ABD is an unproven quantity, who might sparkle or might not.
This is true, of course - some people who have published shouldn't have. (But there are people out there with great articles, or even books published or book contracts with top presses who don't have t-t jobs.) But note there's a flip side: sometimes SCs will fall in love with an ABD on the basis of potential, only to see that potential fizzle out and never materialize. A top school placed several ABDs over the past few years - three of whom then still took 2 years to defend. Those people are now looking for new jobs so they can restart their tenure clock, having wasted a third of it on something that should have been done before they started their job. So to me it seems like six of one and half a dozen of another. Risky either way. Me, I would prefer the proven record of experience, but others may not.
Frankly I think the job should go to the best candidate for that department. I don't care if they went to Stanford or Hole-in-the-Wall. That means, though, that SCs must not be blinded by "potential," and that fellow candidates must not look for excuses to find themselves slighted at every turn.
New topic:
Anyone else catch that UC-Santa Barbara hired and lost one German, only to hire another?
I imply nothing about the hires or the program. It's interesting, that's all.
9:17 never said that pedigrees didn't translate into opportunities. You go to a good program, you hope to have opportunities. Again, I think what you are saying - and I'm seriously trying to get this right, not start a fight - is that there are crappy candidates from brand name programs who are hired solely on the basis of having gone to a brand name program, which apparently did not do them any good because their ideas suck. They are getting jobs instead of people who went to good but not brand name programs, who have better ideas, who got a better education, and who deserve the jobs more but are losing out just because of where they got their degree. If SCs saw a research letter from each and met with each in person, without knowing where their degrees came from, they would choose the person who did not go to the brand name program. However, once that brand name gets flashed in front of them, they are blinded to reality. Is that a fair assessment of your complaint? Again, I'm seriously not looking for a fight, so please don't say I'm a troll. I honestly want to understand your complaint and what it is you see as unfair. As I said, I'm not from an elite program, and I have done hiring before, so if I'm hiring unfairly, I'd like to know how to fix it.
Anyone else catch that UC-Santa Barbara hired and lost one German, only to hire another?
I imply nothing about the hires or the program. It's interesting, that's all.
Hey, I was just about to post a similar sentiment! Not to mention, they made a senior hire from the UK earlier this year.
Again, not saying anything.
re: UCSB - he's a German-educated Kiwi technically. Do your research!
Anon 10:21 describes a scenario that I too have seen happen in the hiring process: SC members "blinded" by an "elite" degree (whatever the flavor of the year is, indeed - but let us be real, there are only about 10 flavors in this popsickle stand). One upshot of this is that the "Classicists" are on the whole made by a very small number of institutions that are thus able to reproduce the very shape of the discipline. Someone wrote earlier about an apparent lack of faith some of us have in the "free market" approach. Well, look outside your window to see what it has done to the economy where you live. The way our field conducts itself - i.e., its business as usual - seems to have produced the very perception/reality that Classics is moribund.
Opening up the field more could be one way to inject some life into it. One solution: SC members in all stripes and ranks should loudly fight against any efforts to allow a degree from an "elite" school unduly influence the process. As some of us have noted here, this DOES happen. Well, who is fighting it?
How do we keep an elite degree from unduly influencing the job search process. One of the main barriers is, of course, that if you are trained to think a certain way, you are going to like candidates who think the way you do, and that homogeneity is due to the fact that you all were trained in the same environment. So even if you remove names and degrees from research statements, you still are not going to remove the tendency for search committees to choose people who think like they do because of similar training. So how, then, do you encourage different sorts of thinking, other than having the APA regulate hiring for a period of five years to ensure diversity on search committees?
9:17 is not a troll simply because you make jokes about decaf and ranting. ... you still did not answer 9:17's question - since you think something about the system is deeply unfair, could you please a) outline exactly what is unfair, in your opinion, and b) what solution you would propose.
I think you're arguing with three different people and assuming it's the same person. Someone else called you a troll. Someone else said that s/he felt despised for her/his degree. I said that Stanford improved quickly by throwing huge sacks of cash around, which isn't a widely available strategy and thus not a very good example of how most graduate programs can improve their standing.
I also said you need to switch to decaf, because after I made that pretty straightforward point you went off on a bizarre rant and threw around a bunch of wild accusations about my degree envy and my spite towards Stanford: not only do I not have either of those things, but there was also no information of any kind in my comment to suggest that I have either of those things.
So, just to be clear:
Stanford using wealth to recruit faculty = perfectly fine
other universities that can follow that path = few
unfairness in this arrangement = possibly nil
policies that I would prescribe for remedying this putative unfairness = none
caffeine = a stimulant that should be enjoyed in moderation
One of the main barriers is, of course, that if you are trained to think a certain way, you are going to like candidates who think the way you do, and that homogeneity is due to the fact that you all were trained in the same environment. So even if you remove names and degrees from research statements, you still are not going to remove the tendency for search committees to choose people who think like they do because of similar training.
In terms of training and intellectual outlook, there's actually a lot of diversity among the top dozen or so programs. Harvard training looks very different from Princeton training, which looks very different from Berkeley training, etc (to say nothing of UK or Italian or German training). So I don't really buy that it's a matter of like being attracted to like.
There doesn't seem to be much fundamentally wrong with the system of hiring. There is probably quite a bit wrong with the people operating that system, both committees and candidates.
Having failed to get a t-t job now for 6 years despite numerous interviews and fly-backs, I have considered that I might be at fault (it is, in fact, my working hypothesis). My unreasonable suggestion would be to introduce something similar to blind review of articles. Committees explain clearly to those candidates they interview why they did not hire that candidate.
This would be very helpful, but for obvious reasons it will not happen.
tinkerty tonk,
poldy
Then what is the problem? Perhaps it is not your problem, because I certainly did recognize that there were different people chiming in, but did not feel like inserting the time stamps for each different poster. Someone did, however, imply (by saying that they were applying in Bizarro World or whatever phrase they used - followed by a reply from another poster that the SCs hired without rationality) that two Stanford ABDs, whom they basically named by stating what jobs they got, perhaps should not have been offered the positions they were offered.
So maybe you, 12:13, do not have a complaint or think anything is unfair, but someone on this board does, and other posters have implied that they do also. So I was asking the collective you to specify what they are unhappy about and how they think it can be fixed. If you are not part of the collective you, then great! I am glad you are happy with the state of the discipline. I still would like to hear from the other posters what their complaints are and how to fix them. And I still mean it with all sincerity.
FV's First Law:
Success in getting jobs is inversely proportionate to the amount of time spent posting on FV.
A more practical lesson from all this might be that program specialization helps. Let's face it, Stanford isn't even playing the game in much of Classics (read: Latin). But they attract excellent Hellenists and archaeologists, they train them well, and they place them. Someone will probably start screaming about balkanization of the field, but I'm not sure that's especially helpful. Programs should stop trying to cover all their bases - that way you end up with broadly trained students who can't speak with authority about anything, and so don't get a job.
I would like to point out that, from the point of view of SCs, just as there is a prejudice for Princefordian degrees, there is also a prejudice against them.
Schools that aren't themselves Princefordian-league run the risk of losing that Princefordian they just hired after only a couple of years when the Princefordian trades up to somewhere 'better.' So sometimes SCs who have a clear sense of their department and what they want out of the new faculty member will prefer a non-Princefordian who looks more like someone who wants to stay and will share their departmental objectives.
Not sure if that's right or fair either, but it happens. And keep in mind that, realistically speaking, most jobs are at non-Princefordian schools.
But you will be surprised how many departments roll the dice and go after candidates out of their league. It's partially a result of the dearth of jobs in classics, where it's fairly common for lower-tier schools to snag graduates from top-tier programs, unlike most other disciplines (how often does a Ph.D. in economics from Chicago or Stanford teach at Middle Missouri State College?). Still I know of several instances this year where SCs foolishly wasted a campus invite on candidates with tenure at an Ivy or departments found themselves with their recent hire moving to a bigger name school. Besides hirability, I think departments would be wise to also consider retainability. If this results in a bias against Princefordians, so be it.
"Soooo, dude from Stanford got the Harvard gig and he's not even finished; and girl from Stanford got the Oklahoma gig, which advertised for lyric poetry, with a diss. on Homer and Aristotle...
Am I applying for jobs in Bizarro World or something?"
-The Harvard Society of Fellows explicitly states that it accepts Fellows who are at the dissertation stage of their PhD as long as they are within a year of finishing.
-The Oklahoma advertisement (Oct. Placement Service) explicitly stated that "the area of specialization is CLASSICAL RHETORIC or Greek lyric poetry." The girl from Stanford has a diss on "Homeric Rhetoric and Aristotle's Rhetoric," according to the website that has aroused so much agitation over the past few days.
Bizzaro World or much ado about nothing?
I'd like to take this opportunity to object to the use of girl in the original post. Not only is it condescending, but the correct term is "dudette."
"can someone explain Penn's success this year? Is it just a random year?"
I think it's partially random, but it's also a result of some existing factors. Looking over the four successful candidates "outed" on the wiki, two have VAPing experience while two are ABD. The two VAPs appear to be teaching at top-notch programs. Based on what I hear from friends, Penn grads are usually well-trained to teach and given ample opportunities to do so. I know my program didn't give me nearly as many teaching opportunities. This probably helped the two VAPs get their current positions and the two ABDs get hired straight out of school.
One of the ABDs filled a religion/Late Antique type position. Penn is strong at linking with other departments, which can be a plus and minus. It often puts them at a disadvantage when competing for mainstream positions, but when a more interdisciplinary position comes up, and they fit it, they are obviously strong candidates. Besides religious studies, Penn is also strong in history, art history, philosophy, archeology, etc, so there are ample opportunities to forge links with other programs and produce interesting research.
When looking at grad schools, this attracted me to Penn but in the end I went for another program because I didn't have the guts to branch out a bit from the mainstream. I have some regrets but I'm in a good TT position now so it all worked out.
Bizzaro World or much ado about nothing?
As often happens, someone was completely flipping out over an entirely imaginary injustice, and the whole hissy fit could have been avoided by the smallest bit of research (if going to the APA website can be called "research").
So, why wasn't the hissy fit avoided? Because some people come here looking for opportunities to flip out and specifically don't want to encounter any information that could take away one of those opportunities.
I would like to point out that, from the point of view of SCs, just as there is a prejudice for Princefordian degrees, there is also a prejudice against them.
Several weeks ago I listened to an Ivy PhD friend rant about a PhD from a "lesser" school taking a job from him...the argument was that the "lesser" PhD only got the job because someone on the SC was from the same school. I found the complaint hilarious, as 8 times out of 10 it would probably go the other way.
I would also add that it may not be that meaningful to look at a program's success from such a limited data set. Perhaps the successful Stanford candidates this year are just good students and would have done well at Michigan, Rutgers, Harvard, or wherever. What attracts graduate students is usually big names and overall reputation, for better or for worse.
To change the topic slightly: Are folks thinking--perhaps hopefully like I am--that the jobs canceled this year will be re-opened again this coming fall? Or will we potentially be seeing more shrinkage in the market as a result of the economic downturn? I'm starting to worry about the latter...
I suspect you will see a fair number of one- or two-year positions, as administrations deal with filling teaching needs without committing to tenure-track lines. If there is an upswing in tenure-track lines, it won't be be next year but the year after, as things (hopefully) stabilize. However, as has been pointed out before, the last couple of years were abnormally 'good', so don't expect that things will be super-duper great.
They are saying that the economy will bottom out this November at the earliest, so the market will definitely not improve next year, unless universities severely overreacted this year (which I don't think is the case). Since there is a bit of a lag time, I think the absolute earliest we will see a rebound to the market is 2010-2011. But who's to say that the classics market will even ever rebound back to the heights it reached in 2006?
Re: this coming Fall
There are many factors that will come into play. Take into account that many people near retirement may have lost nearly 30% of their retirement savings with the stock market downturn. Some (not all) of those faculty members may opt to stay on for a couple more years to try to rebuild a little of what they have lost before finally moving on.
Even when there are retirements, it is not up to the department whether that line will be replaced or not. It is up to a dean. Deans are not necessarily going to agree that there must be a replacement. They are often under pressure from higher administrators to cut budget lines wherever and whenever they can.
There may very well be an upswing in term positions (VAPs and lecturers) this Fall in place of TT jobs, but not likely a huge upswing. Be prepared for a bad market.
Hopefully, it's not distasteful, but I think that the little spat above about SCs and fairness in hiring leaves out many factors that have an influence on the process, but which candidates rarely, often never, are aware of.
These are nothing new. If you go back far enough in this now outsized line of comments, you'll find them mentioned on occasion.
While we would all like the hiring process to be fair, transparent, and based upon reasonable standards that everyone could agree upon and which would result in the "best" people getting the job in every case, frankly, such thinking is naive. I am not trying to be a troll or stir up the hive here. But I think a reality check is in order.
When a department is given permission to hire a new faculty member, the first line of restrictions can come from the dean. In certain cases, and I know this from personal experiences shared by past SC members in several different fields, not just our little pond of classics, the deans have even told the department point blank: "you will hire an X." I put an X there, since that X can vary in different cases. But there may already be a restriction placed upon the hiring committee from the start. If they do not come back to the dean with a candidate that is an X, the dean will not make an offer, and the search will fail.
If the search has no restrictions from the deanery, the next stage at which it can already become a less than level playing field is in the composition of the search committee. You're dealing with individuals here, so there are no general statements that can be made. You can have a group of conscientious people who will strive their best to find the candidate with the most merit. You can have a cabal of knaves who already have a clear idea of what they want ("let's call up my good friend at XXXXXXXX, where I got my degree, and see who their most 'promising' graduate student is").
Now even when you have your open-minded, merit-oriented search committee, things can happen. They might be searching for a Greek philologist, even if they don't say they are (the "generalist" cattle call ads), but they come across an eye catching Roman poetry person. They could have an ad for a Roman Republic prose position, but instead offer the job to someone who works on the Roman Empire. Why? Because they liked what they saw in that person more than what they saw in the rest of the field of candidates.
It's nice to think that it's a meritocracy and the best rise to the positions they deserve, but frankly, that's naive. Someone mentioned "rationality" above and while SCs are not irrational (that goes too far), they are human beings, and so are prey to personal preferences, biases, and even the occasional whim.
If you look at one particular program, which will remain unnamed, and examine their recent hires for the past eight years or so, you will find that they have all come from only three schools, all of a certain type. Clearly, the senior faculty have a certain preference, and those from other schools should probably not bother applying.
So, what reforms am I advocating? Shall I call the masses of disappointed candidates to revolt?
I have no reforms to offer, and no rallying cry to yell. But let's stop pretending that it is a meritocracy.
I'm not casting aspersions at those who have gotten jobs. People who angrily rail at the "Princefordians" and the like may let off some steam, but they accomplish little else. And on the other hand, those who angrily rise to the defense of those from the "elite" under attack also err, since not everyone who graduates from an "elite" program is good. I've been around long enough to come across a good number of mediocrities with prestigious pedigrees.
People must go into this process with their eyes open. The power of your ideas are important. The quality of your degree can matter. How you behave in an interview can make all the difference. Projecting a professional air, neither arrogant swot nor groveling job-seeker, will serve you well. Sometimes, it is you.
But everyone, please keep this in mind as well: sometimes it wasn't you. Sometimes, you can do everything right: have the most brilliant thesis, a record of teaching, publications, a professional, friendly air during interviews, and you can still wind up being an also-ran. Why? Because the SC liked another candidate better, or it may be that another candidate went to the same school as one of the SC members, and had not only a very strong letter of reference sent to recommend them, but even a phone call or better yet, a word or two from their mentor at the alma mater to the SC member during those "receptions" held at the APA every year. A group of us once when quite bored at one of these functions tried to alleviate the tedium somewhat by watching such activities and providing the appropriate commentary.
It is not a fair and transparent process in the end, but there's nothing that can be done about it. Every hiring department will have its own individual needs—and quirks. You have to sell yourself to their needs—and quirks—as best you can. When you find a place that matches what you have to offer, you will find a job.
The only thing you can do is prepare yourself in the best ways possible. There are plenty of resources linked on the main FV page. Beyond that, the process is entirely out of your hands.
I am afraid this turned into a much longer piece than I had intended…
I still 'angrily rise to the defense of those from the "elite" under attack' when they are as good as named. That was just tacky and mean-spirited, and I am surprised that that post wasn't deleted.
Good morning Mina-san,
Here's another suggestion. Require graduate students to take part in at least one search.
Give the confused searcher some practical sense of what goes on behind closed doors. It need not necessarily be in Classics, if the department makes no hires during a students time.
I hope you will forgive me, long-time lurker, if I point out that I made substantially the same point a bit more concisely.
tootle-pip,
poldy
Anonymous said:
…when they are as good as named. That was just tacky and mean-spirited, and I am surprised that that post wasn't deleted.
I agree that ad hominem attacks should never be tolerated, and that post should probably have been edited or deleted. There should be no further discussion about whether any specific candidate "deserved" a particular job or not. We can talk in generalities, but no more discussions of specific, named individuals. Only time can tell whether a person "deserved" the position or not.
poldy said...
Here's another suggestion. Require graduate students to take part in at least one search.
A very interesting idea, but it will never be acted upon in practice. Searches have a high level of confidentiality involved. There might be quite a few senior members who would look askance at the idea of mere graduate students being allowed to see what they have written in confidence. It does not matter if the search is in another department.
I hope you will forgive me, long-time lurker, if I point out that I made substantially the same point a bit more concisely.
tootle-pip,
poldy
Certainly. Brevity has never been one of my strengths.
I do not get a 'tinkerty tonk' however?
And with that, I think it's time to return to the tenebrae where all good lurkers…lurk.
"A very interesting idea, but it will never be acted upon in practice."
Fortunately, the person who asked for suggestions never said they need to be workable! However, unlike my earlier suggestion, this one has precedents. I know of at least one department at a public institution that has a policy of requiring at least one graduate student take part in hiring.
tinkery tonk,
poldy
A very interesting idea, but it will never be acted upon in practice. Searches have a high level of confidentiality involved. There might be quite a few senior members who would look askance at the idea of mere graduate students being allowed to see what they have written in confidence.
Actually, at some institutions it's normal for search committees to include a graduate student member, and (at least in my experience) it works very well.
I've been a part of a search as a graduate student and I think it's a great practice.
For one, it keeps egos in check, especially those belonging to misbehaving sabretooths (as I was told later on by surprised colleagues). For some reason, it's okay for sabretooths to go on the prowl when alone with colleagues, but a student in their midst gives them pause (which leads me to believe that at least these particular sabretooth knew what they normally do is wrong).
The other thing that a search let me see is how unsystematic and sometimes random the process really is. Don't get me wrong, the SC members were good people, but being on a SC was the last thing most of them wanted to do on top of their everyday duties. In short, shite happens and you do your best. Some details get obsessed over that really shouldn't be and other details get lost when more efforts should have been made to address them. It's a messy process conducted by mortals that I believe are usually trying their best - with varying results.
Anyone heard anything on CAMWS interviews yet? IIRC, Calvin, Union, Case Western, and Wisconsin plan to interview there. Wisconsin's CAMWS due date was today, but the rest were a week ago.
Do you really think committees are going to get through the 100+ apps they got in only a week?
Do you really think committees are going to get through the 100+ apps they got in only a week?
What I love about FV: an innocent, honest question seeking information just has to be answered by someone determined not to answer the question but to be rude and/or snarky and/or sarcastic.
CAMWS is next week. There's no Placement Service there. In order to get a schedule in time, schools ought to be at or near finished reading those supposed 100+ applications. And those applications were due ca. March 15-16, not just a week ago. Last year we had a discussion on how many applications temporary jobs got, and the general impression was that 50-60 were the norm. Wisconsin clearly thought they could get through a bunch in just a few days, why not other schools?
What is happening with Bryn Mawr? Job offered? Really offered? HUH?
So the Pomona TT search failed, and now they seem to have offered their VAP job before the application deadline has passed. Can we officially give them an award for Weirdest Search of the Year?
Re: Pomona
If not weirdest, then maybe most unprofessional?
Hah. I once interviewed for a job that was intended for someone who works in my sub-field, and the only person on the committee who worked in that area WAS the grad student, while at least two search committee members, including the chair, were hardly qualified to judge me or the other candidates. I didn't get the job, though the person who did was certainly a perfectly good choice.
Last year we had a discussion on how many applications temporary jobs got, and the general impression was that 50-60 were the norm.
This is not last year. I work at one of the schools hiring a VAP and talking to people at CAMWS. We got far more than 60 apps.
I work at one of the schools hiring a VAP and talking to people at CAMWS. We got far more than 60 apps.
Crap.
De-lurking with hesitation:
Weirdest? Swarthmore ranks high, in my opinion.
So, they advertised for a 1-year (deadline 12/31/2008) and a TT in Greek/Latin poetry (deadline 1/15/2009), and everyone who applied for the VAP was considered for the TT. Technically, at least I think so, the APA interviews were for the VAP, since the TT deadline was post-APA.
Were there phone interviews for the TT post-APA?
Campus visits happened. TT job was offered and accepted, as snail mail indicates. Et voilà , department profile will consist of two Hellenists (philosophy + histor[iograph]y) and one Romanist (history), with incoming Hellenist (diss on prose + reception, which may involve poetry).
But I don't recall mention of any info about the VAP in the rejection letter. So, what of the VAP? Is the current visitor (another Hellenist, I think) staying on?
Boh.
Grad students on SCs
I've had conference-to-campus interviews at two top R1 institutions (one state, one private) with a grad student on each committee. I was not at all bothered by their presence. In fact, the best/ most interesting question I've ever been asked at an interview was asked by the grad student member.
For the responsible grad student, it's also a tremendous advantage - she (yes, in both cases, the grad student was a woman) will know what to expect when being interviewed herself.
wow. 25 hours without a comment. Everyone must be hard at work.
Yeah, dropping CVs off at every Starbucks within a 35-mile radius. No time for classics crap.
As a long-time lurker with lots of friends on the market (still) and recent time served on a SC, I do want to point out that people are forgetting that not everyone involved in the hiring process (as alluded to by 3/24 11:24) is a classicist. So, for example, our dean - who knows nothing about classics - tends to think of the quality of schools in terms of his/her own field or more generally. So, even if Harvard classics were terrible (which they aren't), this dean would still look very favorably on a hire from Harvard.
This kind of logic actually dominates more of the job market than I had realized, but I've since seen it come into play a lot. As a colleague explained to me, the influence of grad schools is largely regional, and only a few have strong enough reputations to give their students a shot at jobs around the country. To use Harvard again, that name carries weight throughout the country, but a school like Illinois has a much narrower influence. If you are at a mid-range college in Illinois, you - as a SC member - will understand the value of students from Illinois and be more inclined to hire them, whereas someone at a mid-range school in California may be less inclined to attribute to that Illinois degree the same worth.
Finally, a related phenomenon has to do with the age of people on a SC. At a lot of smaller schools or schools where there isn't as much emphasis on publications, the faculty are - on the whole - going to be less engaged with what's happening in the major programs in the field. So, while I can look at my graduate school and see how different it is now in comparison with what it was like when I started, for the bulk of faculty in the field older than me, they probably think of it as being roughly the same. Reputations aren't made - or lost - overnight, and so there's a lot of carry over. Rutgers, for instance, seems to be taking strides toward putting together a good PhD program (to judge from the number of Rutgers applicants I've seen), but since Rutgers isn't a traditional classics powerhouse, it's going to take a while for that reputation to permeate, and so Rutgers people on the market now may find they have a harder time getting a job than their successors in the program will a decade down the road. Seriously, though, until I started reading all sorts of files from Rutgers, I hadn't even realized that Rutgers HAD a Ph.D. program, and so it was that much harder to evaluate those students. And I could be totally off-base, here, but it wouldn't surprise me that most of the jobs that the Rutgers people are getting are on the East Coast, where Rutgers has an established reputation.
Okay, just some things that I figured should be said. As a word of encouragement to everyone, just keep working and remember that the cream eventually rises to the top (and the dregs eventually settle).
In other words, if you don't want a regional-bound (and possibly 2nd tier) career, don't go to grad school anywhere outside the top 10?
I don't mean that sarcastically, I really appreciate your post. I'm just asking. To be honest, while harsh and a little indiscriminate, that kind of makes sense.
As a word of encouragement to everyone, just keep working and remember that the cream eventually rises to the top (and the dregs eventually settle).
Anon. 10:20, I agree with everything else you said, but while the dregs may eventually not get tenure, the cream may have failed to find a job and been forced to leave the field.
In other words, if you don't want a regional-bound (and possibly 2nd tier) career, don't go to grad school anywhere outside the top 10?
Depends on what you mean by second-tier career. It's perfectly possible to teach at a less-than-stellar school and have a stellar research career. (I could name names, but FV bans that.)
In other words, if you don't want a regional-bound (and possibly 2nd tier) career, don't go to grad school anywhere outside the top 10?
Nobody is guaranteed the kind of job they want. The chances of getting the job you want, however, are affected by the regard in which your Ph.D. institution is held, generally or locally. The less "elite" the program you attend, the bigger the gamble you're taking.
This is information that anyone considering graduate school in any field should have at the forefront of their mind; it shouldn't be something they discover as they're headed out on the job market. I'm not sure whether this is a failure of disclosure on the part of departments, or people dead-set on going to graduate school aren't really concerned about 5-7 years down the road.
It's perfectly possible to teach at a less-than-stellar school and have a stellar research career.
Yes, it is. But the point is that, statistically speaking, such a person is a comparatively unlikely success; it's great for that person, but doesn't mean that one should think that's a prudent route to follow. That's the kind of thinking that sustains lotteries.
I think one factor is that SC look for familiarity; they look for research (and people associated with it) that they can relate to. No matter how wonderful a Princeford diss might be, if they do not understand its significance, or do not have a letter spelling out its significance, an app will likely be passed over. If there is a non-elite state school diss supervised by the known expert in some well-received topic, it will often get past the first stages.
I'm convinced more than ever that the first vetting process before teh APA is when we lose many good candidates; there just isn't enough time and information to do this process justice, not when there are hundreds of apps. Once you get to the campus visit, it's fairly obvious how the person might do with students and research.
The upshot? It's impossible to predict what topic might be particularly well-received over 5 years down the road. Like all grad students, you often need to choose between big-name school with not so great fit for you, or small-name school with a great fit. Sometimes you get lucky and get the big name with a perfect fit for you, but this isn't the norm by any means. The problem with classics is that any gamble you make might mean joblessness, unlike more thriving disciplines like economics or biology.
It's perfectly possible to teach at a less-than-stellar school and have a stellar research career.
Yes, it is. But the point is that, statistically speaking, such a person is a comparatively unlikely success; it's great for that person, but doesn't mean that one should think that's a prudent route to follow. That's the kind of thinking that sustains lotteries.
Ugh, I completely misread what you were saying. I read "study" for "teach" in your first sentence. Ignore that part of my comment.
Hi folks,
Here's a change of topic, I guess. I've got two undergrads interested in studying Latin lit in grad school. What are some of the best places to recommend? NB I don't ask in order to disparage any place - please don't give negative recommendations - but has anyone has a really good experience lately with a program, or does anyone think really highly of a few particular programs? thanks.
I've got two undergrads interested in studying Latin lit in grad school. What are some of the best places to recommend?
Law school.
Nah, law is flooded - computer programming, health care, etc.
I would go with Nursing. There is a shortage.
Accountants are in high demand these days.
"Latin lit in grad school"
It is hard to give advice without knowing the students. It might help if we knew a bit more about their interests.
-poldy
Can one even do just Latin lit? I hope they also know plenty of Greek.
Who needs Greek anyway? Let's cut our losses, consolidate our resources, and move into the future.
Wow...cynicism and hostility, all rolled into one. I didn't realize I touched such a nerve. Maybe I should ask another forum for help. Anyway, yes, these students have plenty of Greek too, but they want to specialize in Latin poetry and/or prose if they can. It seems everywhere we look, Hellenists predominate. So I was hoping for some interesting suggestions and/or endorsements for exciting places to study Latin lit.
@ Anon 5:48, 9:56
It's a sad thing, but naming departments and, worse, recommending one over another on this blog is bound to lead to a big food fight. I don't think this is the right forum for this kind of question. But then again I don't know if there is one for it either.
It seems everywhere we look, Hellenists predominate.
I'm not sure what this means. That they're more numerous than Latinists in any given department? That you've heard of the Hellenists but not the Latinists?
That said, I think that what should be emphasized is the overall intellectual experience of a program, which doesn't really become "Hellenist" or "Latinist" until the dissertation phase. It's important that there be enough, and exciting enough, people in your discipline to make up your dissertation committee, but beyond that I don't see how a numerical preponderance of Hellenists or Latinists in a department makes much difference to whether it's a good place to study one or the other.
Ad March 27, 2009 5:48 PM:
Hmm ... tough to answer without naming names. And what I have to say isn't going to be so useful now (would've been in the late '90s). But I somehow feel compelled to share my positive experience, albeit obliquely.
I worked (not closely) with a respected Latinist at one place (in top 20), one of few that were the best teachers in the department, who's now at another place (not in the top 20, I think). Just about the nicest person one can study with. On one end of the experience, prof took all the first-years in our Latin lit survey to coffee individually at the beginning of the term, took genuine interest in us as students and people, regardless of whether our scholarly interests aligned. Still the case when we run into each other at APAs, and I wasn't even an advisee. On the other end, just about every fellow PhD alum a few years ahead of me and now TT/tenured at reputable schools worked with prof.
Maybe there's a way we can correspond in more detail outside FV?
I've got two undergrads interested in studying Latin lit in grad school. What are some of the best places to recommend?
Hmm, let's see. Everyone on this site is busy casting the evil eye at two universities for being splendacularly successful. As someone pointed out earlier, one of the two doesn't really do Latin. Et voila...Princeton.
I'm not entirely kidding. The only problem is, as someone else pointed out last year, if you're the sixth best candidate from P-town, kiss that dream job goodbye. (I believe there may be some apt fortune cookie wisdom about knowing yourself or something.)
I went to a peer institution, was very happy with it, and got a decent job, so while Princeton's Latin program may be the best on paper, I'm not sure it makes that much difference in the end. I guess the rule should be: go somewhere that 1) is famous, 2) will pay you, 3) lacks sociopaths, and 4) has at least two people in your field.
Sorry, forgot to put this in my previous post: and Penn, that'd be my other Latin choice besides Princeton. But as I said, not sure how much any of the fine differences really matter.
Re: graduate school advice
It sounds like you just need some schools to check out. Aside from the oft or already mentioned schools, there are University of Washington, UC Berkeley, USC, UCLA, Columbia, Brown, UNC, Michigan, OSU, Chicago (omissions do not imply criticism - just a pre-coffee note of where *some* excellent Latinists teach with broad geographical range).
Another idea: a terminal MA before scouting about for a PhD school. The extra two years can be very useful in clarifying many matters about graduate school.
toodle pip.
If your students aren't particularly wedded to the idea of staying in the country, Toronto's also very good for Latin (especially poetry).
Prose at U-Toronto is also good Go there and work with Gunderson. He is awesome.
I'd be wary of steering them anywhere based on their own current interests - undoubtedly (and hopefully?) those will change. I went to grad school expecting to be a Roman Historian. I left with a PhD in Greek Poetry. Go figure.
The best places are those that 1) have a collegial atmosphere, 2) pay well, 3) provide good opportunities for teaching, and 4) place their graduates, regardless of specialty.
Just my five cents.
Based on your list of criteria, I should have gone to Penn, judging by what's been said about the program this year and how they're placing all types of people all over the place. The funny thing is that in the late 90s, it didn't even make my shortlist (and the program I did eventually choose was waning in retrospect). It goes to show that it's difficult to tell which program is waxing or waning at any given point.
Yes, Penn does have a strong program across the board and the atmosphere was quite collegial when I was there (no idea now with all the new blood), but it paid shite. I heard it's better now, but it was a strong negative back in the day. One thing that Penn did and I applaud is hiring both junior and senior faculty (whether by choice or based on finances). My undergrad program on the Left Coast was almost entirely made up of full professors. I'm not sure why most big-time programs think it's ideal to have 90+% senior faculty.
This is all very informative, thanks. I've been reading all the comments and hope for even more.
The last poster really caught my attention with this remark, though:
"I'm not sure why most big-time programs think it's ideal to have 90+% senior faculty."
What is the disadvantage here? I would think you go to grad school for precisely these people, not the newbies or (possibly) stalled-out mid-career profs.
What's the advantage of the mix?
Junior faculty bring an energy that's often missing among senior faculty. Their research is almost always more up to date. They can also usually relate better with grad students.
There are stalled-out mid-career faculty, but there are many more seniors on cruise control from my experience who can somehow go on sabbatical every other year.
I'm not saying we should have 90% junior faculty, but an overall balance.
The other issue is what will happen 5-10 years down the road to a department a bit long in the tooth? Will every retiree get replaced, even at elite schools?
The thing to keep in mind is that programs don't build or lose their reputation overnight. Penn has probably been doing some good things for years now and it's only recently come to the forefront. On the flipside, there are probably some programs living on reputation more than substance. It all goes in cycles based on who has been *active* among the faculty, not just listed on the roster.
A lot depends on the pro-activeness of the student. You can usually find two decent faculty at any graduate institution, you just have to make sure you learn from and work with the best you have. In fact it may be better to choose your field based on quality rather than reputation (though you should *always* have one brand name superviser).
The thing I like about Stanford, Penn, and some other departments is that they have historians and archaeologists on their standing faculty. It's not the same when they are in history and art history departments with cross appointments. For all the grousing and pyrotechnics on here, I don't think anyone wins when we're separated.
Based on your list of criteria, I should have gone to Penn, judging by what's been said about the program this year and how they're placing all types of people all over the place.
We're getting way ahead of ourselves here. No department should be judged on a single year's placement numbers (let alone early, partial numbers!). If you go look at the numbers in the comments thread on the "Past Performance" post (which seems to have been bumped to "page two" of the blog), you'll see that in 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 Penn had very respectable but not eye-popping placement numbers. Furthermore, according to the wiki, Penn Ph.D.s have gotten four positions so far this year, which is in line with what they've gotten the previous two years (6 and 4) but is perhaps more striking because of the smaller number of total positions advertised (and not cancelled!) this year.
In order to get a handle on placement, we need to look at numbers over a range of years; looking at just one year's numbers is what brought us last year's brilliant "Princeford" concept that has served us so well.
It's not just placement. As a former postbac there, i know that the atmosphere is quite collegial (miss those coffee hours on Thursdays, Prof. RR!) and their students get loads of opportunties to teach, as mentioned earlier. They also have a very broad and holistic faculty. Alas, I did not get in and headed elsewhere. For whatever reason, Penn always seems to fly under the radar though and theire faculty has only gotten stronger the last five years.
Please let it continue to fly under the radar. I don't want talk of Pennford, Pornell, or whatever. Let Princeton and Stanford continue in the limelight.
FWIW, Penn is up to at least six positions this year (will leave it up to others to "out" them), which is quite remarkable in this market. Fluke? I'm sure at least in part, but it's not just random either. I think it reflects a renaissance of sorts that has been happening to the program across the board for the last decade.
Yeah, but good luck getting your students into the program now. We did quite well in the past placing our students into their classics, history, and clarch programs, but we haven't gotten a sniff in the past couple years. (We're a flagship state school with a top 30 program, if that matters)
Some of the most useful comments so far have been the 'flying under the radar' places. Go ahead, name names - anyone know of a few places that are diamonds in the rough (or likely to be in the near future)?
I don't understand why Penn hasn't garnered more attention; in addition to having a great faculty, they also have placed a number of excellent people at prominent places for the better part of the last decade.
Real "diamond in the rough"?
USC.
University of British Columbia
It's a bit depressing but I can think of more in the "living on reputation" or "best days behind them" category than diamonds in the rough.
Maybe Cornell, Northwestern, Virginia, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Washington, Iowa, Buffalo, Arizona, Penn State, and Florida State? I don't think Arizona and Penn State have a Ph.D. program out of the group.
For some reason, I think Big Ten programs have suffered the most. Wisconsin had an incredible program a generation or so ago, but it has severely contracted along with the rest of the university after it's postwar meteoric rise. Illinois had a storied program in the first half of the last century, but it's treading water at best now with no end in sight. Indiana is pretty much the same story as Wisconsin.
In the end, I think it has much to do with how much the administration supports the department, especially at public schools.
Georgia and Vanderbilt have M.A. programs (Vandy the M.A.T. as well), but no Ph.D. program. Thank god for that. They are great places to get a Master's, but I hope they don't think they need to offer a Doctorate. I think we should have fewer Ph.D. programs and a few more M.A./M.A.T. programs, but I've said that before here and it has been swatted away by grayer heads. Frankly, there are a number of Ph.D. programs that take in students with no hope of real placement. It is unethical.
Yeah. Wisconsin might not be the best place to study Latin at the moment.
You said:
It's a bit depressing but I can think of more in the "living on reputation" or "best days behind them" category than diamonds in the rough.
Maybe Cornell, Northwestern, Virginia, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Washington, Iowa, Buffalo, Arizona, Penn State, and Florida State? I don't think Arizona and Penn State have a Ph.D. program out of the group.
Does this mean that you think the schools above are good places to go, or burned out husks to be avoided? Sorry if I'm dense but I'm not sure I understand which you meant here.
I think the burned out schools are the Big Ten list. The first list are potential candidates for diamonds in the rough.
Though not as prominent as the Big Ten schools, I think classics has also suffered at lower-tier R1 universities and non-elite SLACs. It actually surprises me that some top-50 research schools don't have independent classics departments. UC Davis, UC San Diego, and Michigan State are three that come to mind immediately.
Post a Comment